Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hospital Fuel Efficiency Schemes

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, dated 13th March, 1953, on the Accounts 1951–52 of the Regional Hospital Boards in Scotland and the fact that substantial investment in new central boilers for six Scottish hospitals is rendered ineffective and much coal is being wasted as a result of failure to provide pipes and sundry equipment to complete the central heating schemes; why this impasse has arisen; and what steps are being taken to end the wastage of fuel and money.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): Yes, Sir. The completion of central heating systems at these hospitals has been delayed partly by technical difficulties and partly by limited building and plant resources available for the hospital service. One scheme is now complete; contracts for the completion of two more will be let within the next three months; the fourth has been deferred till next year because the Regional Board concerned have more urgent projects in view; the fifth has been deferred because an extension of the hospital is projected for Civil Defence purposes which may make a more comprehensive scheme necessary; while the sixth has been abandoned for the present by the Regional Board concerned, and the boilers are being used elsewhere.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that Scotland has departed from her traditional role

as a substantial exporter of coal and is now an importer of coal, and in consideration of the delicate coal position which we all anticipate next winter will he expedite and accelerate all these fuel efficiency schemes in Scotland?

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that Scottish Members are well aware of the situation and are perfectly satisfied that he will keep the matter in hand?

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: When the Minister refers to shortage of resources, is he aware that the resources called for in this case are cast-iron goods and the cast-iron industry is not now working to full capacity? Ought he not from that point of view to make sure that the resources are made available?

Commander Galbraith: I was referring to past difficulties and not to present difficulties.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken to allot sufficient sums of money and steel and cast-iron to the Scottish Regional Hospital Boards with a view to coal conservation in hospital boilers and central heating and steam raising plants in view of the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General; and what professional and technical advice he and the Hospital Boards are taking in the matter;
(2) what steps he is taking to reduce hospital heating costs and assure improved coal utilisation in Scottish hospitals; and whether the Scottish Fuel Efficiency Committee have been consulted, in view of the report dated 13th March, 1953, by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Commander Galbraith: The allocations of money for capital expenditure, and of building and plant resources to the hospital services in Scotland have regard to the economy in running costs, including fuel consumption, that modern installations of various kinds can achieve. Hospital Boards and my Department have experienced engineers on their permanent staffs, while consulting engineers are generally retained for specific projects. In addition the services of the technical staff of the Ministry of Fuel and Power are available for consultation.
Detailed advice on the need for fuel economy and methods of achieving it has been given to hospital authorities in a memorandum of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. This memorandum was endorsed by the Scottish Fuel Efficiency Committee.

Mr. Nabarro: In consideration of the fact that my right hon. and gallant Friend's reply inferred that everything is in perfect order in connection with steam-raising and fuel consumption in Scottish hospitals, would he say why the Comptroller and Auditor General has found it necessary, in his publication of 13th March, to make some very pointed comments about the inefficiency of the existing arrangements?

Commander Galbraith: I would not altogether accept my hon. Friend's suggestion or his interpretation of the words used. The fact is that other things are required by the patients in hospitals as well as heating systems, and we pay attention to what is best for the patients.

Mr. Manuel: While we are aware of the difficulties and recognise what is holding up the improvement of heating installations in many of our Scottish hospitals, can the Minister indicate to the House just how many applications have come to his Department from the Regional Hospital Boards, who are aware of the position, and whose applications, because of lack of capital development resources, have not been allowed so far?

Commander Galbraith: That is a rather different Question and I regret that I have not the information available.

Private Building Licences

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for licences by private individuals wishing to build their own homes have been received by town and county councils in Scotland during the last convenient 12-monthly period; how many of these applications have been granted; and how many refused.

Commander Galbraith: In the year ended 31st December, 1952, licences were granted for the building of 2,716 houses for owner-occupation. I regret that information as to the number of applications received by local authorities and the

number refused is not available for that period.

Mr. Spence: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend have an inquiry made into the position, which has been causing some concern? Can he give an assurance that private individuals wishing to build houses in Scotland are given the same facilities as those in England?

Commander Galbraith: The matter is under constant review, and inquiry goes on all the time.

Mr. Woodborn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the raising of the Bank rate and of interest to people who are trying to buy their own houses has made it impossible for the scheme to succeed, and that many licences have been returned because people cannot afford to build houses under the present system?

Mr. Spence: Further to that supplementary question, is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that my Question had nothing to do with the Bank rate or the ability of the individual to build a house? My Question related to the refusal of applications.

Land Registration Committee (Chairman)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to appoint a chairman of the Committee on Land Registration in Scotland in place of the late Lord Macmillan.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): My right hon. Friend does not propose at present to appoint a successor to the late Lord Macmillan as Chairman of the Committee on Land Registration in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some circles it is regarded as regrettable that no further steps are being taken? In view of certain anticipated changes in the judiciary, might it not be that someone will become available for this post in the near future?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the late Government, during its last three years, was not successful in finding a chairman either. We have made inquiries, but my right hon. Friend's experience is that he has encountered no desire on the part of the profession for any immediate changes.

Mr. Wheatley: Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the inquiry, or is the delay merely occasioned by the difficulty in obtaining a suitable chairman?

Mr. Stewart: It is partly the difficulty in obtaining a chairman, but it is mainly because we have encountered no desire on the part of the profession for changes.

Mr. Wheatley: Will the hon. Gentleman state categorically whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to pursue this inquiry?

Mr. Stewart: At the moment, yes.

Physiotherapy Service, Eyemouth

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state when the physiotherapy service previously available at Eyemouth, Berwickshire, will be restored.

Commander Galbraith: The matter is under review by the hospital authorities, and I shall write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I have a further report from them.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there was a very satisfactory service at Eyemouth before the passing of the Act and that any economies which may have been sought have been very much offset by the expense of transport in ambulances? Will he bear these facts in mind before coming to a decision?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

Land Drainage Schemes

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will introduce legislation to undertake the large-scale drainage work which is needed in Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): My right hon. Friend is anxious to introduce legislation at the earliest possible moment, but this subject has proved to be extremely complex and he cannot commit himself to a date at present.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Cannot we get a move on with this long overdue task? In the meantime, is it not

difficult to convince visiting foreigners that we are in earnest about home produced food supplies when they can see from the road or the rail, as they can in the Spey Valley, thousands of acres of land which are unproductive for want of drainage schemes?

Mr. Snadden: I am well aware of conditions in the Spey Valley which I toured last autumn, but I should like my noble Friend to realise that such questions as betterment and maintenance are extremely complicated and previous legislation has proved to be defective in those two respects. We are most anxious that when the Bill is introduced it shall be an effective piece of legislation.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Joint Undersecretary tell us something about the difficulties which he says he is encountering? Many of us have written to him about constituency problems of periodic flooding each winter. In the Garnock Valley shops and houses are flooded each winter. When will his right hon. Friend take some definite steps within the Cabinet so that we may have a date when legislation will be brought forward?

Mr. Snadden: The difficulties with which we are confronted are not difficulties with the Cabinet or even with the Treasury. Our difficulty is to find a suitable code or formula to deal with such problems as betterment and maintenance. My right hon. Friend is only too anxious to have legislation, but we want to make quite certain that when it is presented to the House it will be effective and will not collapse.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be extremely difficult to get the agreement of all the parties concerned? Will he resolve not to be deterred by that consideration and to bring in the best available plan at the earliest possible moment?

Crofter Counties (Road Grants)

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants have been made through his Department, apart from the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, towards aiding works of construction or improvement of roads in the seven crofter counties and in Ross and Cromarty in particular.

Mr. Snadden: Since the end of the war grants amounting to £569,382 have been offered by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland towards the construction or improvement of roads in the seven crofter counties. The amount relating to Ross and Cromarty is £127,483.

Mr. MacLeod: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very niggardly sum and that there is a very strong case to be made in the national interest for the grants to be increased, particularly where township roads are concerned, so that the county council may take over those roads? If he agrees, can he say what action is being taken to secure increases?

Mr. Snadden: The grants to which I have referred are in answer to the Question. They are merely the grants paid by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. There are other grants paid by the Ministry of Transport for trunk roads and classified roads. Grants to the tune of £30,000 have also been made for bridges in the crofter counties.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any applications by the Ross and Cromarty County Council for grants for roads have been turned down?

Mr. Snadden: I could not answer that question with accuracy without notice.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend think that money could be saved if an aerial survey of the Highlands was carried out to show the easiest roads and access to the best grazing areas?

Mr. Snadden: I should not think that such a survey is necessary. We have information about the Highland areas within the Department of Agriculture, and it is very comprehensive.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not providing the by-roads which are necessary to secure greater food production in the Highlands, and as resources of materials and men are available in many of the counties, will he look at the matter again and ensure that larger grants are provided?

B.C.G. Vaccination

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the use of B.C.G. vaccination to include school-leavers.

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend proposes in the near future to issue advice to all local health authorities on the extension of B.C.G. vaccination to children about to leave school.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for that answer, which I am sure will be very helpful in combating the spread of T.B.?

Mr. Woodburn: Are we to take it from that answer that the Department is now satisfied that B.C.G. is effective and that the scientists advising his hon. Friend are satisfied that it is quite safe and reliable as a preventive for tuberculosis?

Commander Galbraith: I would not go so far as that, but we believe that trials are far enough advanced to enable a general extension to school leavers.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend inform the House now what B.C.G. really means?

Mr. Ross: Is it not the case that about 4,000 school-leavers last year were vaccinated with B.C.G., and can he tell us in which areas this original experiment was made?

Commander Galbraith: I cannot give detailed information on that point, but I can tell the hon. Member that 14 out of the 55 local authorities in Scotland have already been specially authorised to provide vaccination for school-leavers.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that most of those medical officers who have made a special study of tuberculosis are quite agreed that B.C.G. is an effective preventive and does no harm to those who are vaccinated with it?

Commander Galbraith: I should not like to give a categorical answer to that, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that we are satisfied that it is a good thing to go ahead with.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to take the steps necessary to ensure that B.C.G. vaccine will be manufactured in Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: As there is no difficulty in getting adequate and satisfactory supplies of vaccine from abroad, it has not so far been considered justifiable to incur expenditure on manufacture in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the importance of this vaccine, is it not unfortunate that we should be wholly dependent on imports in order to meet the demand which the Minister proposes to place upon the service?

Commander Galbraith: At the moment it is costing about £600 a year. We consider that the establishment of manufacturing facilities would involve the expenditure of several thousand pounds a year in addition to the capital outlay. Over and above that, we are also aware of the fact that one of the biggest manufacturers in this field in this country would undertake production of the vaccine at short notice.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could my hon. Friend say whether B.C.G. vaccine is an anti-tuberculosis vaccine?

Commander Galbraith: Yes.

Mr. Snow: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman care to call for a report which was lodged with the Ministry, of Health in 1946 on the subject and, more specifically, bearing in mind the similarity between certain parts of Sweden and Scotland, will he observe the comments of Professor Wallgren of Stockholm, who has very interesting remarks on the use of this vaccine?

River Purification Boards

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the new provisions for maintaining and restoring the cleanliness of the rivers, inland waters and tidal waters of Scotland contained in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, have been advanced.

Commander Galbraith: Last year my right hon. Friend sent to the local authorities concerned proposals for establishing 10 river purification boards in areas south of the Caledonian Canal. Formal orders have now been made establishing three of these boards; a draft order has been published for the establishment of a fourth; and one is about to be published for a fifth. Negotiations are at varying stages in connection with the five

remaining boards and it is hoped that draft orders will be published for two of them in the next few weeks.

Mr. Rankin: Can we take it that the implementation of the Act is being speeded up, and is the Minister aware that there are protests about the fact that many rivers are now more polluted than they were before the Act was passed?

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend would like to get ahead as fast as possible with this matter, but in some cases, and particularly in connection with one area, more than 20 local authorities have got to be consulted and agreement reached after that.

Mr. Wheatley: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us which of the 10 boards fall into the respective categories he has outlined?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir. Orders have been made in respect of the Lothian, Solway and Tweed areas, and an order has been published in respect of the Banff, Moray and Nairn area, while an order has been printed in regard to the Ayrshire area. The Dee and Don area, the Tay area, the Forth area and the Clyde area are still under consideration.

Mr. Pryde: In view of the fact that each year the annual reports show that the rivers of Scotland are steadily deteriorating, would the Minister not consider setting up an independent committee to inquire into the cause of such deterioration?

Commander Galbraith: I think the causes are well known.

Exchequer Equalisation Grants (Report)

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Working Party on Exchequer Equalisation Grants is likely to be published.

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend hopes to present a report to the House before the end of the summer.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at present 15 local authorities in Scotland, covering almost half of the Scottish population, have not received one single penny under this scheme? Is it not obvious


that the scheme in Scotland has completely broken down and at a time when the English and Welsh local authorities are receiving millions and millions of pounds? I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accelerate publication of the report.

Mr. Awbery: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the report will cover the country as well as Scotland?

Commander Galbraith: This report only concerns Scotland.

Development and Industry (Report)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to indicate the names of the organisations which he has consulted with regard to the Cairncross Report and what conclusions have been reached.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Report was submitted to the Government by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and the views of the Scottish Board for Industry are awaited. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question asked on 31st March by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton).

Mr. McInnes: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that that answer is most unsatisfactory because this document has been in the possession of the Government for many months? Does not the serious unemployment in Scotland demand immediate action, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to study this Report and reach some conclusions at an early date?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. The Report is available, but the Government have not reached a decision about it for the reasons which I explained on the last occasion.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my hon. Friend aware that, without necessarily accepting the implications of the remark of the hon. Gentleman for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) about the immediate unemployment problem or the difference between Scotland and England in that respect, there is a widespread feeling that the present Distribution of Industries Act was framed to deal with

circumstances in Scotland very widely different in many respects from those which we are meeting at the present time, and can he say what are the prospects of the whole of these arrangements being revised and. where necessary, readjusted?

Livestock Rearing Act

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the Livestock Rearing Act to permit of grants over 50 per cent. for essential improvements which do not form part of a comprehensive scheme.

Mr. Snadden: I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that the Livestock Rearing Act will be amended as suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of land development that is going on in the crofter counties, because there is a widespread impression that a great deal more could be done and that the present machinery is not by any means adequate?

Mr. Snadden: The figures show that there has been considerable progress under this Act. I appreciate that the hon. Member has a special problem in Orkney because the land there does not comply with the conditions laid down in this Act. However, he has made representations to my right hon. Friend and they are now being considered.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could the Minister say whether any roads are being turned down because they are not in the comprehensive scheme demanded by the Act?

Mr. Snadden: Not that I am aware of.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold an inquiry into the Scottish rating system and the finances of local government.

Commander Galbraith: The working of the Exchequer equalisation grant is already being investigated. The wider questions referred to by the hon. Member are being kept prominently in mind.

Mr. Manuel: That will not do.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the wider questions to which this Question is


addressed are extremely urgent, that many local authorities are finding great difficulty in dealing with their finances at all, and for those in the Highlands who have a small rateable value the situation is serious and the Government should indicate quickly what action they will take?

Commander Galbraith: The Government will indicate it in due course.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say whether the Scottish Office is considering reform of the Scottish rating system, as recommended in the Sorn Report, and in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government?

Commander Galbraith: I have indicated that we are considering these matters.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: is the Minister aware that the need for an inquiry into the rating system is underlined by the latest estimates of Exchequer contributions to Scotland which show that Scotland will be receiving during the coming year only 10 per cent. of the total when the population proportion gives Scotland over 11 per cent.?

Mr. Stokes: In considering this matter, will the Joint Under-Secretary remember the number of anomalies which would be ruled out if he introduced a thoroughgoing rate on site values?

Light Castings Industry, Falkirk

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the difficulties at present facing the light castings industry in the Falkirk area; and whether he will consult with his colleagues in the Government in order that appropriate steps may be taken to enable the industry to overcome these difficulties.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Yes, Sir, I am in close touch with my colleagues and the position is being urgently looked into by the Departments concerned.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation in this industry is a great deal worse than it ought to be in an industry connected with metal using and metal production, and

is he aware that a good part of the responsibility for this rebuilding must lie directly on the present Government, because a good part of its present situation is attributable to recent Government policy?

Mr. Stewart: I find it difficult to accept that suggestion. In fact, the problem is extremely complicated, involving fundamental changes in the pattern of demand and in technique and import restrictions by other countries. We are looking into this matter and we are in touch with the Scottish Board for Industry. We are doing everything possible because we are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is about it.

Mental Institutions (Nurses)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the extent of the shortage of nurses in institutions for mental defectives.

Commander Galbraith: Some 30 additional nurses are required to staff the 141 unstaffed beds in Scottish mental deficiency institutions. Additional accommodation for mental defective patients is, however, needed, and various developments are in view for which considerable numbers of further nurses will in due course be required.

Tenants (Eviction)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to take steps to prohibit the eviction of tenants from houses built for agricultural workers by local authorities or the Scottish Special Housing Association.

Mr. Snadden: It is, of course, for the local authorities and the Association to manage their own houses, but if the hon. Lady will give me particulars I shall make inquiries into any particular case she has in mind.

Out-patient Departments

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve out-patient organisation in Scottish hospitals.

Commander Galbraith: A report on this subject by the Scottish Health Services Council was commended to hospital boards some time ago, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. I am


assured that the boards keep the working of out-patient departments under constant review, and many improvements have been made in the last few years. If, however, the hon. Gentleman has any particular difficulty in mind, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know?

Mr. Ross: The Minister will be aware that the Department of Health states that the way out of this is by putting into operation an appointments scheme; is he also aware that, even where appointments schemes exist in certain Scottish hospitals, it is not unusual for out-patients to have to wait two, three and even four hours, many of them having travelled long distances, before the specialist even sees them? Will he ask specialists visiting these hospitals to consult more the needs of the patient rather than their own convenience?

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is aware that these appointments systems sometimes fail to achieve their object in practice when the organisation is faulty: I am certain that everything will be done to endeavour to rectify errors where they exist.

Mr. Ross: But surely the Minister must realise that this complaint has been one of considerably long standing and that we want something more definite than that?

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the supplementary question indicates the urgent desirability of an inquiry into the whole State medical service?

Hospital Patients (Maintenance Costs)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the current average daily cost of maintaining a patient in hospital.

Commander Galbraith: The latest complete returns are for 1951–52, which show an average cost per patient over all hospitals of 21s. 5d. per day. The hon. Member will find full details for different types of hospitals in Statement B of the 1951–52 Accounts, recently presented to Parliament as House of Commons Paper 117.

Mr. Ross: That paper, of which I have a copy, shows that there was a 9 per cent. increase over 1951. [HQN. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] What I am asking is

whether that trend has been continued or whether there has been any effort on the part of the Government to cut down this cost?

Commander Galbraith: Every effort is being made to achieve economy with efficiency.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Minister can say whether in the first quarter of this year the cost was going up or down.

Commander Galbraith: Not without notice.

Mr. Ross: Surely a Question on the Order Paper is notice of a question.

Hospital Building and Maintenance

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the building allocation for Scottish hospitals this year; how this compares with 1952; and how much of this allocation will be spent on essential maintenance.

Commander Galbraith: In each of the two years, just over £1½ million has been allotted for hospital building work and just over £1 million for essential maintenance.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that about 50 per cent. of the total allocation has been taken up on essential maintenance, but that even so less maintenance is being done in Scottish hospitals than was done before the war? Will he treat it as a matter of urgency that there should be a greater allocation?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

School Meal Charges

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him by local education authorities regarding the lower charge to be made to parents in respect of school meals for the second and remaining children in a family, as compared with the charge for the first child.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: None, Sir. The regulations empower, but do not require, education authorities to make provision in their schemes for reduced charges for large families; and 26 of the 35 authorities have done so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the terms of the recent communication sent to him by the county of Ayr on the subject of increased costs of school meals; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has had no communication about the increased cost of school meals from the Ayrshire County Council since they submitted their scheme of charges on 24th February.

Mr. Hughes: But is not the Minister aware that there is strong resentment in Ayrshire against the imposition of this purchase tax on school meals, and will he not advise the Treasury that the time has come to abolish it?

Mr. Stewart: It is quite true that the county council made a strong protest against the increase in the charges for a mid-day meal, but their scheme was approved by the Department with an amendment which fixed the reduced charge for the second and subsequent child in a family at 7d., which is 2d. less, and with certain other drafting amendments. Therefore I think it can be taken that the county council are operating this scheme reasonably well and amicably at the present moment.

Mr. Manuel: They are not pleased with it.

Teachers (Shortage)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures to show in which subjects the shortage of teachers is most pronounced; and what steps are proposed to meet the situation.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The subjects in which shortage is most pronounced are mathematics and science, domestic subjects, physical education (women) and music. I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am considering, in consultation with the bodies concerned, what might be done to improve the position.

Mr. Hoy: Will the hon. Gentleman now consider using blind teachers, whose services have so often been refused by the Scottish Education Department?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and I have gone into this in great detail. As he knows, the cases he has in mind are not very easy of solution.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Whatever else my hon. Friend does, will he avoid differential salaries for different categories of teachers?

Following are the figures:

Subject
Staffing deficiency at 1.10.52
Number of teachers in category at 1.10.52
Deficiency as a percentage of posts (filled and unfilled)


All categories
2,260
34,500
6·1


Music
247
562
30·5


Physical Education (women)
94
491
16·1


Domestic Subjects
225
1,474
13·2


Mathematics and Science
218
1,569
12·2

Promotion Tests

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ensure that, in order that parents may be in possession of all facts necessary to enable them to form and express their wishes as to the course of secondary instruction and training to be followed by their children, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Section 29 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act. 1946, a child's results in the promotion examination will not be withheld from his parents if they ask for them.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No. Sir. In deciding from which secondary courses a pupil shows reasonable promise of profiting, promotion boards are required to have regard not only to his performance in intelligence and attainment tests but also to his primary teacher's estimate of his attainments and to any other relevant factors. The parent is informed which courses have been selected by the promotion Board in order that his wishes may be taken into account in finally allocating the pupil to a particular course, but no useful purpose would be served by communicating the marks scored in the various tests, which by themselves are not determining factors.

Mr. Macpherson: While they may not be determining factors, they are certainly extremely influential ones, and how is it


going to be possible to carry out the purposes of the Act to enable the parents' responsibility for the education of the child to be fully maintained unless the parents wishes are taken fully into account?

Mr. Stewart: They are taken very fully into account. As in my hon. Friend's constituency of Dumfries, promotion schemes often provide for the parents' having an opportunity of consulting the primary head masters after being informed of the course to which their children are to be sent. The procedure for ascertaining the wishes of the parents varies from area to area, and I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend details if he wishes.

School Admissions

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children who have reached their fifth birthday have not obtained admittance to school.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have made inquiries in those areas where difficulties are most likely to have arisen and I am informed that, with the exception of about 10 children in Dundee, no children of school age have been refused admission to school.

Miss Herbison: In making his inquiries, has the Joint Under-Secretary also made inquiries about what the position will be next year? If he has discovered that the position will be more difficult, would his Department change its policy and build more schools rather than having a 40 per cent. cut as it did in 1952?

Mr. Stewart: As to the second part of the supplementary question, we have no reason to believe that matters will not be all right in the immediate future. Certainly, in the case of these 10 children, we have every reason to believe that they will be looked after quite soon. As regards school building, I think the hon. Lady must be under a misapprehension. We are not stopping local authorities from putting up new schools now. The obstacles that were there before are not there to the same extent, and I want more schools just as much as she does.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister not aware that, from his own figures given in answer to a previous Question, in 1952

there was a cut of almost 40 per cent. in commencing the building of new schools? Is he not also aware that many of us do not accept that all of that cut was due to lack of materials?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Lady knows, one of the reasons—perhaps the main reason—for reducing the number of new starts was in order that the available labour and materials might be used to complete schools already begun, and I think that every expert agrees with us that from the point of view of building schools it was the right policy.

Mr. J. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Scottish children between the ages of five and eight are receiving part-time education in Scottish schools?

Mr. Stewart: I would need notice of that Question, but I think the numbers must be infinitesimal, if there are any at all.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to meet the serious situation which he has outlined in Dundee?

Mr. Stewart: I will gladly tell the hon. Gentleman. Of the 10 children in Dundee aged five who were not admitted to school at the last admission date in February, three are living in new housing areas where the schools have not yet been completed, and two of the others are delicate and their parents asked to be allowed to keep them at home for a period. The education authority in Dundee is hoping to find places for four of these children before the end of the session and the others will be admitted at the next commencement date in August.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

War Office (G.S.O. IIIs)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider amending the establishment of the War Office by abolishing all general staff officer grade III appointments.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): No, Sir. I think that this would be impracticable. But we have been replacing young Regular officers


serving in these appointments by retired officers, Women's Royal Army Corps officers and civilians. This will continue.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these officers fall between two stools? They have not sufficient authority to deal with policy matters and much of the detailed work could be dealt with by competent clerks. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend is anxious to economise at the War Office, will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Head: We have considerably reduced the number of these officers and it is our intention to see that none of them continues as a G. III unless there is a stool for him.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What is the age limit for retired officers to come into a G. III job?

Mr. Head: I should not like to say without notice. I think it is 55, but I will confirm that.

Welbeck College Vacancies (Press Advertisements)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War to give an indication of the type of newspapers and periodicals used to carry the advertising for the entry of boys into Welbeck College.

Mr. Head: The vacancies for Welbeck College were advertised in five national papers, "The Times," the "Daily Herald," the "Daily Mirror," the "News-Chronicle" and the "Daily Telegraph"; three schoolmasters' papers; four magazines; and 17 provincial papers covering, in particular, Scotland and the North of England.

Mr. Carmichael: Not the "Daily Worker"?

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer completely contradicts the allegation made from the other side of the House during the Army Estimates debate, that the wrong papers were used for the purposes of this advertising?

Mr. Head: I think it is not in agreement with the remarks that were made.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the right hon Gentleman satisfied with the publicity given to this arrangement in the North of England,

in view of the fact that only two or three candidates were selected from that part of the country?

Mr. Head: As far as Scotland is concerned, I am not entirely satisfied—

Mr. Ross: Scotland is not the North of England.

Mr. Head: But Scotland is concerned in this. The results from the North of England have not been altogether disappointing.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no matter how effective the advertising, he will not get the applicants unless the conditions of application are sufficiently attractive to potential applicants and their parents? Does he recall that he answered four Questions to me a short time ago about minor matters connected with the process of application, and that to three of these his answer amounted to saying, "We do it this way, not because it suits the convenience of the applicant, but because it suits our convenience at the War Office"?

Mr. Head: Oh, no. I assure the hon. Member that that is not so. It is our object to get as many Scottish applicants as possible, and if the hon. Member can help in that I shall be very pleased.

Sandhurst (Entry Awards)

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for War how many boys from secondary grammar schools and how many boys from independent and direct grant schools passed the latest written examination for places at Sandhurst; and how many of each group were awarded places by the interviewing board.

Mr. Head: Thirty-nine boys from secondary grammar schools and 114 boys from independent and direct grant schools passed the latest written examination. The corresponding numbers later selected for the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, by the interviewing board were 22 and 96.

Dr. King: Will the Minister assure us that he stands by the views expressed by his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty, that we want the best officer material, independent of the social origin of the children? Is he aware that in the last Sandhurst examination, six of the first 10 in the written examination were


rejected and the 85th was accepted? Some of us are still uneasy about social barriers being used in the selection of candidates.

Mr. Head: I do not think that this interviewing board in any way makes rejections because of social barriers. We have now started a school for the very purpose of opening up the Army. In the first batch 48 candidates were accepted, of whom only four were from the public schools.

Canteen Charges, Japan

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the representations made to him by British troops in the Kure area of Japan that, in view of the high prices charged by the Australian Canteen Service, they should be permitted instead to trade with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and what is his decision.

Mr. Head: I am in touch with the Australian military authorities on this matter. I think it is likely that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes will take over, but no definite decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that representations were made to the Secretary of State on this matter last August? Why does it take nine months, and still we cannot get a final decision? These men are still having to pay the high prices.

Mr. Head: The reason is that suggestions were made locally—the official request came later—and that before the N.A.A.F.I. can undertake this, they must be certain about Customs, taxes, etc., locally, which are now the subject of discussion in the negotiations for a military agreement.

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that. Can the right hon. Gentleman, however, give some idea of when he will be able to make a decision about this, in view of the lapse of time and that the list of prices, of which I have a copy, shows that our troops in Japan have to pay at least 50 per cent. above N.A.A.F.I. prices whilst "enjoying" British rates of pay?

Mr. Head: That is quite true, but taxation conditions, etc., are different in Japan from Korea. The Australians have had considerable difficulties in this.

I cannot guarantee a date for the decision, but I hope it will be before the end of this Session.

N.A.A.F.I. Tea Prices

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War the present prices of a cup of tea in Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at home and overseas; and the prices charged immediately prior to the decontrol of tea.

Mr. Head: A cup of tea in the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes costs 2d. at home and the nearest convenient currency equivalent overseas. Immediately before the control of tea ended, the price was 1½d.

Mr. Jeger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food are constantly asserting that the decontrol of tea has led to the cheapening of prices. Why is this not reflected in the N.A.A.F.I. price of tea as far as our troops are concerned?

Mr. Head: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food is quite right. Tea was decontrolled in October, but it was in the previous May that the N.A.A.F.I. had decided to put up the price. The two factors were not, therefore, connected in any way.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Secretary of State keep in mind that our troops in Korea have to pay 3d or 4d. for a cup of tea in the Australian N.A.A.F.I.?

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is calculated that 288 cups can be made out of a lb. of tea and that the price works out at 48s. per lb. to our soldiers and sailors?

Mr. Head: Yes, but unfortunately the price of tea includes such things as transport, wages, broken cups and a host of other things.

Scottish Unit Trusts

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War what guidance he has given to commanding officers of Scottish units, which have been disbanded or amalgamated, on the disposal of funds and property which belong to those units by virtue of trusts formed under Scottish law.

Mr. Head: The question of legal jurisdiction over charitable trusts is very complicated. Colonels of Scottish regiments have been told that they may apply to either the Scottish legal authorities or the Charity Commissioners for their schemes.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can we be quite certain from the reply of my right hon. Friend that the Charity Commission, which refers to England and Wales only, has any jurisdiction whatever over funds set up under Scottish law? If that is not the case, can we be certain that no further action will be taken by them until the point has been settled?

Mr. Head: I am not a lawyer, still less a Writer to the Signet, but I think that is the case, although I will confirm it.

Recruits (Franchise Rights)

Mr. D. Brook: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to advise new recruits of the steps they should take to ensure their being able to make use of their franchise rights.

Mr. Head: Recruits on enlistment and National Service men on intake are given a Service voter's declaration form and have their electoral rights explained to them. In addition, commanding officers carry out an annual check of the state of electoral registration within their units.

National Service Men (Commissions)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War what opportunities are afforded to the colonels of county regiments to make and maintain touch with National Service men wishing to be considered for commissions in the regiment with which they have family or residential connections.

Mr. Head: These men all go to Eaton Hall Officer Cadet School where there is a representative of each infantry regiment. The cadet there has an opportunity of being interviewed by the representative who forwards his particulars to the colonel of the regiment for which he wishes to be considered.

Mr. Vane: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that a colonel of a regiment cannot take any initiative himself and simply has to wait until some

representative of his, who may not hold a commission in the same regiment, writes to him from Eaton Hall?

Mr. Head: No, I can assure my hon. Friend that is not so. Colonels of regiments take considerable initiative and have full opportunities for doing so. Many of the contacts are made before the boys go to Eaton Hall on the chance that they will get a vacancy.

Joint Services Language School

Mr. Doughty: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to secure the early release from requisitioning of those portions of Couls-don Common which are still held by his Department.

Mr. Head: Those parts of Coulsdon Common which are still held on requisition are at present needed for a Joint Services language school.

Mr. Doughty: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to remove the Joint Services school and free this common, which is so much required by the local inhabitants, at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Head: I think my hon. Friend has another Question about the future of the school and I think that point will arise in his second Question.

Mr. Doughty: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will, in conjunction with the appropriate Service Departments, inquire into the cost of maintaining the Inter-Services School of Languages with a view to closing it down.

Mr. Head: This is a joint school and an examination is now being undertaken by the Service Departments to see if economies can be made.

Mr. Doughty: When he puts forward the view of the Army, will my right hon. Friend stress that this school ought to be closed in view of economy and that it is a complete waste of time for National Service men, instead of learning to be soldiers to be given only a smattering of Russian, which is quite useless to them and to the rest of the country?

Mr. Head: In the unfortunate event of there being a war, I think there would


be an immense demand in all three Services for Russian interpreters and to cancel this scheme out of hand, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be most unwise. The point we are going into is not the abolition of such schools, but to see what economies can be made.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that this school is not confined to the training of National Service men, but is open to Regulars, both officers and other ranks, and that it performs a very valuable service?

Mr. Head: Yes, I think the introduction of this school was a very wise step in view of the immense demand for interpreters in war and that is a point we are keeping in mind.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Are all sorts of languages taught at this school?

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Troops, Korea and Malaya (Welfare)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that Service men in Korea and Malaya who get few letters from home may receive correspondence through reputable welfare channels from suitable persons in this country.

Mr. Head: I know what it means to have letters when one is far from home and I am in sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. I understand that the Women's Voluntary Services have already helped in this way and I will find out if there is more that can be done.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that, while I am grateful to him for his reply, there are many well disposed people in this country who would be only too glad to send local papers and letters to troops serving overseas and that it should not be too difficult to arrange something with the Women's Voluntary Service and other organisations?

Mr. Head: I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that this is the kind of thing best done not from the War Office but from some voluntary organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Aycliffe Trading Estate

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has regarding the redundancy of workmen with well-established firms on the Aycliffe Trading Estate, near Darlington; and what are the causes for such redundancy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I understand there has been a net fall of about 100 in the number employed on this estate between November, 1952, and March, 1953. The causes include import restrictions abroad and changes in the requirements of the defence programme.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have had correspondence from the trade union organisations regarding the fall in employment? I accept his figure as applying to firms such as Lehmann, Archer and Lane, and engineering works such as E.N.V. Engineering Company, Limited, Crow-borough Engineering Company, Limited, and Block and Anderson, Limited, but how many cases of redundancy are taking place in Government sponsored factories?

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Member is aware that the figures given in answer to a Question of this kind are obtained by confidential inquiry and it is not usual, nor in the interests of those concerned, to give details in answer to questions of that sort.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if in an area like this—for which the Government have accepted special responsibility—there is unemployment, it is a pretty poor outlook for the future of industry generally?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the question asked by the right hon. Member arises more in connection with the next Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade what efforts are being put forward through his Department to attract new industry to the Aycliffe Trading Estate, near Darlington, to offset the redundancy which has been taking place with particular firms on the estate.

Mr. H. Strauss: The rate of unemployment in the Darlington exchange area, which includes Aycliffe, is at present lower than that of Great Britain as a whole. My right hon. Friend is watching the position and will bear the claims of the Aycliffe Trading Estate in mind in considering the location of any new industrial developments.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we have a new town known as New Town, Ayecliffe in connection with this estate and that that new town is catering for a growing population right round Darlington and as far west as County Durham and the East Coast of Durham and a lot of people have uprooted themselves in order to be employed on the trading estate? If incentive is not given to firms on the estate, how can people feel that the Government are really interested in the problem of unemployment so far as they are concerned?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member is quite right as to the importance of considering the new town, and I can assure him that that consideration is being borne in mind. At the same time I think it relevant to consider the figures of unemployment. On this estate the figure was 1.5 per cent. in March of this year; in the North-East Development Area as a whole it was 2.6 per cent.; in the Development Areas it was 3.4 per cent.; and in Great Britain as a whole it was 1.9 per cent. Therefore, while the Government will certainly bear in mind the interests of this area, it is one of many and not by any means the most unfortunately situated.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the trading estate at Ayecliffe was sponsored for a specific purpose—on account of the very heavy employment there has been there for a long time? Is he satisfied that this short-fall has no great significance? Will he see that work is provided in these development areas to keep a fully employed personnel?

Mr. Strauss: I think the points raised by the hon. Member were covered by my answers to this and the previous Question. It is true that certain factors have led to some redundancies in certain of the companies, but as against that others have increased and all the matters to which attention has been drawn are kept in mind by my Department.

Enamelled Baths

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that imported cast-iron enamelled baths have been permitted to be offered for sale without the appropriate legal requirements having been complied with; and what steps he intends to take.

Mr. H. Strauss: The British Bath Manufacturers' Association informed the Board of Trade that a consignment of imported cast-iron porcelain enamelled baths had been exposed for sale in contravention of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 2 Order, 1928, made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. It is open to the Association, or to any person, to institute proceedings, and it is not a case in which, in our opinion, it would be appropriate for the Government to take action.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the fact that the Government have previously taken action in cases which appeared to be similar to this, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why this is not a case in his opinion for taking action?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member is in error about that. It is always for consideration who are the appropriate people to take action, but in cases of this kind the trade association have been the normal party to take action. The statute of 1891 gives some indication of the cases where the Board of Trade should prosecute but, in our opinion, this is eminently a case where the prosecution could be more fittingly conducted by the trade association concerned.

Scottish Tourist Agencies

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is being done with a view to helping the tourist trade in Scotland by encouraging Scottish tourist agencies.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): Both the British Travel and Holidays Association and the Scottish Tourist Board, within their respective spheres, are concerned to encourage the tourist trade in Scotland, and are always ready to help and cooperate with other organisations with the same object in mind. I am sure both the British Travel and Holidays Association and the Scottish Tourist Board


will consider most carefully any suggestions which my noble Friend may care to convey to them.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there exists in Scotland a feeling that there is considerable discrimination in favour of London firms? For example, the firm of Mackay Bros, in Edinburgh, who have a branch office in Newcastle, are denied the sale of tickets on British Railways by the Railway Executive. Is not this a discouragement to Scottish tourist firms?

Mr. Mackeson: I was not aware of the facts mentioned by my noble Friend. Perhaps he will let me have details.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the last two or three days there have been no more than 60 or 70 Questions on the Order Paper. I wondered if that fact would weigh with you when considering whether the whole of them might be finished off.

Mr. Speaker: To some extent, it is a matter for hon. Members themselves to assist in the expedition of Questions. Generally, I think, on the day on which Scottish Questions come first on the Order Paper the procedure is rather slower than on other days.

Mr. Woodburn: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that that occurs so seldom it cannot really inconvenience the House?

Mr. Speaker: I will bear all these things in mind, with other considerations, as well as I can.

BILLS PRESENTED

HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY AT GUILDFORD BILL

"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity called The Hospital of the Blessed Trinity, in the Borough of Guildford, in the County of Surrey," presented by Mr. John Morrison; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN AT COLCHESTER BILL

"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity known as the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, otherwise King James's Hospital, in Colchester, in the County of Essex," presented by Mr. John Morrison; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 233.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[3.33 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bowen, E. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Amory, Hsathcoat (Tiverton)
Braine, B. R.
Crouch, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Assheton Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
 Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Banks, Col. C.
Bushan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Deedes, W. F.


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Burden, F. F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Donner, P. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Dougias-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Carr, Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Channon, H.
Duthie, W. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Biroh, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Erroll, F. J.


Black, C. W
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fell, A.


Bossom, A. C.
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme




Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Law, Rt. Han. R. K.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fort, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.


Foster, John
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Linstead, H. N
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Llewellyn, D. T.
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longdon, Gilbert
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, R. Donald


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R


Gomme-Duncan, Cot. A
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McAdden, S. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimond, J.
McCallum, Major D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Soames, Capt C.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Speir, R. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stevens, G. P.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Summers, G. S.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Holt, A. F.
Nicholls, Harmar
Tilney, John


Hope, Lord John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Turner, H. F. L


Horobin, I. M.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turton, R. H.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Wade, D. W.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wellwood, W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Perkins, W. R. D
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tenbridga)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Wills, G.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Powell, J Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kerr, H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
York, C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Profumo, J. D.



Langford-Holt, J. A
Raikes, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, F.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Champion, A. J


Baird, J.
Bowden, H. W
Chapman, W. D


Balfour, A.
Bowles, F. G.
Chetwynd, G. R


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Clunie, J.


Bartley, P.
Brookway, A. F.
Coldrick, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Collick, P. H


Bence, C. R
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Cove, W. G.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)







Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Frederiok Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyan, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Delargy, H. J.
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederiok (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Leo, Miss Jennie (Cannook)
Short, E. W.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, J.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
McGovern, J.
Snow, J. W.


Fienburgh, W.
MoInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcoim (Stirling)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Glanville, James
Mason, Roy
Swingler, S. T.


Gorden Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Mart, D. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.
Thornton, E.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons, J.


Hamilton, W. W.
Murray, J. D.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hannan, W.
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hargreaves, A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Usborne, H. C.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hastings, S.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Orbach, M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.
Whiteley, R. Hon. W.


Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Hudson, James (Eating, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Rt. Hon.Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Janner, B.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, V. F.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.



Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Pryde, D. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reeves, J.
Mr. James Johnson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

3.43 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: We certainly think that it is appropriate at this stage to consider the Lords Amendments and we wish to say that we think that there has been adequate time both for the Government and for the Opposition to consider what Amendments have been put down, to take a view upon them and to draft the Amendmepts necessary in order to discharge our functions. I hope that no one will believe that the Amendments we are about to consider are short and negligible or that they can be dismissed quickly. They raise important points.
If hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite should be inclined to feel that perhaps they might seem more important to the Opposition than they do to Government supporters, I would remind them that the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, made a brief intervention in the course of the Third Reading of the Transport Bill. In a speech which occupied one-and-a-half columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords, he said:
I am told that nearly 100 Amendments out of a total of 211 on the Order Paper will have been incorporated in the Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House and, of these, over 30 must rank as major or important items. No mean achievement. The time was certainly usefully spent. As I said at the beginning of our proceedings at the time of the Second Reading, the Government have been ready at all stages, as indeed we should be, to listen to suggestions and have not hesitated to amend the Bill by a proper response to public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th March, 1953: Vol. 181, c. 314–5.]
The view of the Government spokesman in the House of Lords is that over 30 of the Amendments on the Order Paper rank as major or important items. I think, if anything, that is probably a slight understatement, although I should be willing to accept it for this purpose. If the House of Commons is to discharge its responsibilities adequately and properly, it is

clear that there must be substantial discussion about a number of the matters which have been put down on the Order Paper and which the House of Commons now comes to for the first time.
It would be wrong, and indeed it would be out of order, for me to debate those matters now. We shall come to them in due course. But on consideration of a Motion of this sort it would be in order for me to list at least some of the important items which are coming before the House either for the first time or in such a substantially altered manner that the House will have to spend time considering them. There is, for example—and I merely quote these as examples—the question of the number of vehicles that are to be retained by the Commission. How many shall there be? That was the subject of continuous and long debate in all stages in the House of Lords. I have no doubt that we shall have to spend some time on it here.
There is the whole question of the formation of companies which in the Lords Amendment now in front of us takes up something like four pages of the Order Paper. This so-called Lords Amendment starts on the middle of page 2, goes down the whole of page 3, the whole of page 4 and the whole of page 5 and ends half-way down page 6. There is more in this single Lords Amendment than is contained in the substance of many Bills that are placed before this House. It is certainly of the most vital importance, and it should be treated as such.
There is the question which has been introduced for the first time by the Government in the course of the debates in the other place about the restoration of the right of entry into the road haulage industry of certain people who had agreed by contract with the British Transport Commission that they would remain outside the industry for a fixed number of years. This is being introduced for the first time.
Another question which will concern us will be the treatment of persons who have enjoyed excessively low rates. This, too, will have to be considered, for it is being brought before the House of Commons for the first time. There is the question of the procedure to be followed by the Transport Tribunal in the raising of fares. This has been altered by the Government.


There can be no dissent in any part of the House from the suggestion that these are major matters.
What vehicles are to be exempted from the levy? Here we reached a decision in the Commons, but the Government, having intimated to us here that they were intending to put down Amendments, in fact did so in another place, and so reopened the question of vehicles that are to be charged with the levy and those which are to be exempted. What is the amount of loss that should be charged to the levy for the British Transport Commission who, as we all know, by the operation of this Bill are to be subjected to heavy losses through the breakup of their operations? That has been altered by the Government in the House of Lords. Clearly whether the Commission are to have proper compensation or not—a matter on which the Government themselves have had second thoughts—is an extremely important question.
The whole question of railway reorganisation was brought under review in the House of Lords. Although I would not suggest that the changes made there were of a major character, they are certainly important, as some railwaymen feel very strongly about the attempt to depart-mentalise and compartmentalise the railways into regions. What degree of competition is to be permitted in the industry? That is another question raised in the other place—whether we should have the industry concentrated in too few hands or whether it should be broken up into a few units. This is a question which has been opened almost de novo by the Government through the Amendment they put down in the other place.
I have illustrated enough to show that we have in front of us a very useful period of work. We shall not be operating under the Guillotine. The Minister will have to rely upon conviction in order to convince the House that what he is doing is right and proper. He will have to rely on being able to take us with him, instead of being able to rely upon the operation of the clock to get him out of difficulty. All these things will clearly influence the Minister in the course which he is to take and the concessions which he may be prepared to make on this Bill. The concessions will not be concessions to a recalcitrant Opposition, but concessions

to common sense and to the overwhelming criticism that has been directed against the Minister in all quarters and at all stages of this Bill by most of the people in the industry.
It is not our intention to divide against this Motion. We wish to start the consideration of these Amendments, but I certainly should not have been setting out the position thoroughly unless I had stated quite clearly that many major items of importance confront us, to which due attention must be paid. We are prepared to examine them thoroughly and properly, without undue delay, and in the hope that the Minister, being faced with the continual criticism which he has had ever since he introduced the Bill, will at this very late stage see the light of day, will be prepared to concede certain Amendments which are submitted in an attempt to improve this Bill and make it, if not ideal, if not good, at least workable and will make some concessions to common sense. We shall proceed to the examination of the Lords Amendments in that spirit.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I should like to say a few words in reply to what has been said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am sure that we are all glad that we are to proceed to the examination of these Lords Amendments, and I share the view of the hon. Gentleman that they raise a number of most important matters. The largest one of them, the one dealing with the company structure, is one about which I warned the House on 4th February, when I said that this would necessitate a further Amendment which would look formidable, but which would not be formidable except in words, for I fully realised, even at that time, that this would give the impression of being immensely complicated machinery at first sight.
About one-third of the Amendments are to meet points raised by the Opposition in this House or in another place, or in some way to meet their point of view, and the Opposition have a definite stake in about one-third of the Amendments. A number of other Amendments are in response to requests made to me in the last few weeks by the British Transport Commission themselves. We are now going to discuss these Amendments, and I should like to assure the Opposition


that I and my colleagues will listen with the greatest care to anything they may have to say.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(DISPOSAL OF COMMISSION'S EXISTING ROAD HAULAGE UNDERTAKING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, at end, insert:
(6) Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do, to dispose of any property, being money or being a claim for a debt or other monetary claim.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move,"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Whatever may be felt about other matters which we shall discuss during the course of our business today, I trust that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) may feel that the first of these Amendments raises a simple enough issue. This Amendment is linked with another Amendment made by their Lordships to subsection (1) of Clause 33, which provides that, for the purpose of this Act, property shall include claims for debts and other monetary claims. I think the House will see that, without this alteration, the Commission would be compelled to dispose of all debts and other monetary claims, indeed including any bank balances and even cash, arising out of their road haulage undertaking.
What this Amendment does is to make it clear—and the position is further clarified, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite will agree, by a Government Amendment which comes later to Clause 5—that the disposal of cash, claims for debts and other monetary claims is placed at the discretion of the Commission and the Disposal Board. I think the House will probably agree that, if that had not been done, the Commission would have been placed in a situation of some unfairness as regards monetary claims which have to be considered.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to make one or two general observations on this, the first of these Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to select the Amendment to the Lords Amendment

now before the House, but I propose to select later another one referring to the matter which I think would be more appropriate.

Mr. Hale: I want to make some general observations on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and also a few observations about the position of back benchers—indeed, everyone—in this House. The procedure under which these Amendments are presented to the House is such as to lead us into great difficulty in rinding out the part of the Bill affected by the Amendments and what they are all about. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to Clause 33, but it is not mentioned in these Amendments at all. Here it is only referred to by means of the page and the line, and throughout the whole of the debate in another place we have this same dilemma.
There were something like nine, 10 or 11 separate debates which took place in another place. We get a debate here interrupted by some statement on another question, and then the debate is resumed, but in another place a three-day debate took place on Second Reading and it was twice interrupted. There was a very long debate on the Committee stage, and another debate, running for a day or two, on the Report stage. I found out that in another place Amendments may be moved on Third Reading.
I spent hours looking for a particular Amendment which had been put on the Order Paper but which I could not find, and I suspected that it had been lost between another place and here. I wish to apologise for that unworthy suggestion, because I found that it arrived in the last few words of the report of the Third Reading debate. It would not be proper for us to comment on the procedure of another place. We can only regard it with that remote respect with which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power viewed the labours of their Lordships on the Committee stage, from afar.
We are in another difficulty. I find myself in some minor physical difficulty in balancing in my hands the Transport Bill, the Lords Amendments opened at two separate places—the place that we are discussing at the moment and the Amendment made on the Committee stage in another place which is related to


the Amendment which we are discussing—the references to the Committee stage in the Lords and also to the Report stage, on which this matter was discussed, the Act itself and my notes. I therefore apologise, but I am doing my best.
There were two speeches on this matter by the noble Lord who was in charge in another place to which I want to refer. The noble Lord started by saying:
This Amendment concerns quite a small point. Under the 1947 Act, the definition of 'property' excludes contractual rights. Now we are in the course of transferring property particularly to companies we wish the definition of 'property' to be rather wider. In particular, we wish it to include debts. That is, of course, particularly for formulating claims on the Transport Fund. It is not a large matter, but it is necessary for the new structure which the Bill has taken since it has reached this Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1521.]
Put like that, no doubt, it should be accepted, and one can well understand that we want to transfer certain things at the time when we are transferring an existing unit.
4.0 p.m.
On the Report stage, the same noble Lord, in a speech equally short, or nearly as short, on behalf of his noble Friend, said:
Your Lordships may remember that at the end of the Committee stage we inserted in the interpretation Clause a definition of the word 'property.' This varied the definition in the 1947 Act, which excluded contractual rights. We put in the word 'property' to include claims for debts and other monetary claims, with a view to transferring, in the formation of companies and perhaps in some cases in connection with transport units, what amount to book debts. Having included money claims in the word 'property,' it might be taken that when the Commission have disposed of their road haulage property they would have to dispose of money debts—in other words, they might be under an obligation to hand over cash or bank balances which happen to be standing in the same Road Haulage Executive account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 61.]
I am bound to say—I say so quite sincerely—that I do not follow that at all. I am sorry if I do not, but why one should say that there is anything mandatory about the provisions when one looks at the complicated provisions of Section 5 I do not know. I do not object to the form of words. I am not certain that the Amendment does any great harm to the

Act, and if it can clarify what is not very clear anyhow, it may be a help.
But there seems something sinister and something unexplained in the Minister's explanation. If it is claimed that Section 1 in its effect is absolutely mandatory over all forms of property, if it is claimed that we have to dispose of everything whatever it may be, if it is the claim that, merely by including in the definition of property reference to book debts, we have to include all things like cash, what else is included? Minute books, records, proceedings, everything relating to that undertaking? Is it the argument of the Minister that when we have disposed of the whole of the transferable property, lorries, actual haulage property, in any given area, we have to transfer everything else?
I should have thought that two points arose on this. I say it with hesitation because their Lordships accepted this without comment, and there were 69 present, an impressive display and almost a record. No comment was made and I am reluctant to make comment. The noble Lord referred to the definition in the 1947 Act, but the definition is not incorporated in Section 1 and thus any Amendment of the definition could not affect Section 1. Secondly, when he merely says that under the use of the word "property" we might include "money," although he has his definition Clause in Section 33, this raises at once two matters of doubt. Legally, "money" is differently defined according to the sense in which it is used. "Money" in a will means something vastly and totally different from what it means in a settlement. Therefore, it is always a matter of doubt.
We want some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of how the conclusion has been arrived at that matters of this kind can be incorporated and whether the words are so mandatory and have left the House in such a mandatory position that the Minister or the Commission might find themselves compelled against their will to transfer assets they do not want to transfer outside the actual scheme of the Road Haulage Executive. The House is entitled to know how far the interpretation goes and what the advice of the Parliamentary draftsmen or the Law Officers is on the point of what would be compelled to be included in the absence of the Amendment.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: We need some explanation about the Clause. It is a very limited Amendment, confined entirely to financial considerations, and the Clause itself is exceedingly tight and harsh as to what the Transport Commission can hold and what it must dispose of. The whole bias of the Clause is in favour of disposing of every conceivable thing that they can, and all the Amendment does is to say:
Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do, to dispose of any property, being money or being a claim for a debt or other monetary claim.
That is why we put down the Amendment with a view to certain things being held by the Commission. This is a very narrow modification, and, on the whole, the bias of the Clause is in favour of requiring the Commission to get rid of every conceivable thing it can. We are not satisfied that the Amendment ought to be so narrowly drafted, and we should be happier if the Minister would make it somewhat wider in its scope.
Incidentally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I do not want to go too far with this, otherwise I shall be out of order. This is an exceedingly difficult form of presentation to follow. Why we cannot have stated the page, the Clause, and the line, instead of having it in this form which gives us the maximum difficulty in following the Order Paper, I do not know. I suggest that the Government, or whoever is the Government's appropriate officer, should consider that point in future.
I hope the Minister will give some consideration to the request that we have made for further information, particularly about why the Amendment should be so narrow in form.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish I could start the proceedings by saying "Yes" to the right hon. Gentleman. This is couched in the usual form for the presentation of Amendments, and if there were to be any change, there is well-known machinery for inter-party consultation with the officers of the House to bring such matters under discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the whole bias of Clause 1 is to make it mandatory on the Commission to dispose of the property of the Road

Haulage Executive. The difficulty which the Amendment is designed to resolve turns on the definition of "property." In the brief debate that we had some three weeks ago, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) contrived to make a short speech about property on the Motion, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." He said that we could rely upon the Upper House being very seriously disturbed about any threat to property, and he suggested, by inference, that a definition of "property" had first appeared in this Bill. That is not so.
There is a definition of "property" on page 138 of the Act of 1947, the Socialist Act. I agree that it is a most extraordinary definition, but it is not for me to explain exactly what went to the making of that part or any other part of that Act. It said that property does not include a mere contractual right, leaving it uncertain what "property" did include.
I was advised when, quite rightly, in another place an alteration was made to the interpretation Clause, to widen the meaning of "property" to include debts and monetary claims, so that, if desired, they could be transferred with the formation of companies, and perhaps in the case also of transport units, that then it became necessary to introduce protecting words so that the Commission would not be obliged to dispose of debts and other monetary claims. This is the sole purpose of the Amendment, and I can assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is nothing sinister at all in this, and that, if it were not incorporated, the Commission might find themselves obliged to dispose even of the bank balances, debts and cash balances, as the word "property" has been widened.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Speaking for myself, I find the Amendment raises as many difficulties as it purports to solve. I agree that we ought not to expect the Commission to sell money. Presumably if it did it would get the same amount back again. The moment we get beyond that point there is a difficulty. We have to deal with debts and other monetary claims, and I should like to know what they are. Debts I can understand, although I do not envy the position of a Commission that may have to carry debts while being deprived of the business


in respect of which those debts arose. However that may be, this question of other monetary claims is much more serious.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps I might answer that question straight away. A claim for damages, for example, might arise. It is to protect the Commission against that sort of contingency that the words have been incorporated.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has answered in a somewhat unexpected form the question I was going to ask: do monetary claims include claims to damages? I am a very old-fashioned lawyer, and I always draw a distinction between monetary claims and damages, because I always understand a monetary claim to be a claim for some fixed amount and a claim for damages to be, putting it roughly, a claim for reparation, the amount to be ascertained afterwards.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether for this purpose he draws a distinction between a claim for liquidated damages and a claim for unliquidated damages?

Mr. Mitchison: I am not drawing any distinction at the moment. I am trying to find out what the language means and I still do not quite understand it. Let us take the two cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has just referred. Unliquidated damages might be regarded as a monetary claim, but what about the much more obvious and much commoner claim to damages which have not been liquidated and which remain to be ascertained? Is that or is that not a monetary claim?
There is another difficulty, as I am sure the Law Officers would tell us if they were here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] A monetary claim to damages is apt to be inextricably mixed up with claims on the other side of the balance sheet, that is to say, claims against the Commission and claims on behalf of the Commission arising out of the same matter and very often linked together only by the usual procedure of the courts, although sometimes more substantially by the nature of the case. We ought to be told, because this is no trivial

matter, what exactly it is that the Commission are to be allowed, or encouraged as the case may be, to retain.
Let me put it very simply. Suppose the Commission have certain approved rights and contingent liabilities. To what extent are they to remain the persons liable and the persons entitled to enforce those claims, that is to say, if they choose to exercise their rights under the Clause?
There is still one other matter which troubles me. What the Commission have to dispose of by the subsection in question is property held by them for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive. What about property which is held partly for that purpose and partly for another purpose? Let me represent to the right hon. Gentleman the sort of case which I have in mind. Let us assume that at a railway station there is a garage held and used partly for the purpose of storage and so on connected with the railway service, and partly for some road transport service. I am not clear whether or not the Commission are entitled under the Clause to retain property of that sort. I take exception to the proposed Amendment not so much for what it says but for the obscurity of the language and for the fact that it really does not deal with the actual question.
I could understand the inconvenience of the original literal wording, but if it had been sought to amend it and make it clear, something further than the Amendment would be required. It is required by way of definition of "monetary claim" and by way of dealing with the sort of point about damages that I mentioned just now. At the same time, the opportunity ought to be taken to deal with the type of property which the Commission ought reasonably to keep for the purpose of carrying on the railways and which may in fact be used both by the railway side of the undertaking and by the road haulage side of the Commission's present business.
I cannot but regard the Minister's reply as insufficient. In this respect I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to say that we regard it as so unsatisfactory and insufficient that unless it can be supplemented and clarified we shall feel obliged to divide on this proposal.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not making a speech. I want to ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to request the attendance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, because we may be confronted with questions of law at any moment, and the House ought to be served?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always ready to accede to any request put forward from the point of view of the House of Commons. I will undertake at some early date to ask one of my law colleagues to attend.
If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would read later Amendments before they make speeches on this Amendment, they would see that the points they have raised are in part taken care of. On page 6 of the Lords Amendments they will see an Amendment "Line 39, at end, insert …" It is the fourteenth Amendment from the Lords. It might be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen if they did as I used to do in their place, number the Amendments so that when we refer to "Amendment No. 14" we all know what we are talking about.
This Amendment deals with property which may be used for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive and which might, for example, be a railway arch. The Commission should not be obliged to dispose of a railway arch merely because the arch has been used by the Road Haulage Executive or for any other purpose. The arch is part of the railway and has always been so. I had many talks with the Commission when this possibility emerged, and as a result these words were designed to take care of that difficulty.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I remind him that I was not talking about railway arches but about a garage or something of that sort which was used for two purposes. That is the point that troubles me. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any help?

Mr. Callaghan: May I make a suggestion to the Minister? We appreciate his saying that he would get the attendance of a Law Officer, especially as a Law Officer will be needed when we get to the Amendment to which the right hon.

Gentleman has just referred. What is the possibility of postponing consideration of the Amendment? It would not delay the proceedings, and indeed might facilitate them, if the Minister withdrew the Motion for the consideration of this particular Lords Amendment and let us move to the next. We could come back to it at a later stage when a Law Officer is here who can advise us about the law.
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it really will be no use having the Law Officers here after we have passed from consideration of this Amendment? Similarly, our deliberations on the Amendment will be extremely delayed if we have to continue them until a Law Officer arrives to explain these points to us. Would it not, therefore, facilitate or speed up matters if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Amendment for the moment and postponed consideration of it? We could then take the matter up later after the Law Officers have arrived.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Further to that question about the Law Officers, in my submission not only one Law Officer but both should be here. This Clause is an extremely difficult and curious one. In Clause 1 power is given to dispose of the property of the undertaking and this Amendment seeks to tone that down so that the Commission shall not be compellable to dispose of money. If the property of the undertaking is sold, it must be sold for money and that money must go to the Commission. What is to happen when they receive that money? How will this Amendment apply to that situation? It means that they will not be required to part with money received for disposing of their undertaking.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This seems to me quite extraordinary. I was advising hon. Members opposite to read the Amendments and I suggested that a glance at page 6 of the Lords Amendments might help. It did not enter my head that hon. Members opposite had not read the Bill. They will see from Clause I of the Bill that the Minister
may direct that any property held by the Commission at the passing of this Act, or thereafter obtained or appropriated by them, partly for or to the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and partly for or to other purposes shall be treated, or shall not be treated, as property held by the Commission. …


I could not agree to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). This is an exceedingly simple point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing sinister in it whatever. It is purely designed to help the Commission and it has no other purpose. If the House feels very seriously about it and is anxious to put this burden on the Commission, then the sooner we test the view of the House the better.

Mr. G. Lindgren: The Minister says that this is a very simple point. I submit that from the layman's point of view it is not simple. It may be simple to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and may be even simple to the Minister, but to others of us, who have looked at the Amendment and at the Bill very closely, it does not seem at all unreasonable to ask the Minister that the definition should be widened in order that one can include plant and stores which may be required for those parts of the Commission's undertaking which are retained by the Commission.
I would go even further. As a railwayman I have always looked to the complete co-ordination of road and rail. It is tragic that, in the development of collection and delivery services, and the correct concentration of those services at certain points, the railways have had to allow vehicles to stand in the open during the winter. That has meant that in the morning there has been considerable difficulty in starting. Sometimes one lorry has had to be towed by another round the yard to make it start. [Laughter.] Hon. Members smile, but it is a fact.
In the old days and even up to 1939 collection and delivery by the railways was done by horse and cart. Under the Transport Act, 1947, the British Transport Commission have modernised their collection and delivery services and the whole of the Home Counties service is now mechanised. That has been done because mechanisation is more efficient. It appears that hon. Members opposite want to go back to the old days of the horse and cart.

Mr. Speaker: I think that this is rather wide of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sorry if I have been side-tracked by the interjections of

hon. Members opposite. My suggestion is that these collection and delivery centres are very often in close proximity to garages which are now within the control of the Road Haulage Executive and which would be very valuable for the British Transport Commission in carrying out work which comes within the scope of the railways. That applies particularly in a number of the Home Counties. There ought to be an opportunity within this Bill to facilitate the use of these garages by the Commission.
If the Minister will give an assurance that that provision is within the Bill, then that satisfies me. I have never pretended to understand the legal phrasing of many Acts of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that that is the intention—and I cannot see it from a reading of the Lords Amendment to page 13, line 39, to which he referred—and if he says that there will be an opportunity for the Commission to retain stores, plant and garages for some other part of the Commission's work, then I am quite satisfied. I will take the Minister's word for it, even without an explanation from the Law Officers; but I think that we ought to have an assurance that it is there.

Mr. H. Morrison: Ask the Law Officers. They are here now.

Mr. Lindgren: I am delighted to see that both the Law Officers of the Crown have now arrived. I do not want to detract in any way from the manner in which the Minister has conducted the passage of this Bill. He has handled the Bill very efficiently from the Government's point of view, even though a little ham-handedly at times; but I think that we ought to have the opinion of the Law Officers as to whether or not there is within the definition in this Amendment an opportunity for the Commission to retain the type of asset to which I have referred for that part of the work which is left to them, and particularly to the Railway Executive. I do not think that it is an unreasonably request to ask that the Law Officers should at least give us the benefit of their definition in conjunction with that given by the Minister.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: The Minister said that this was an exceedingly simple point. If that is so and it is necessary to the Bill, why did it escape his attention when he drafted


the Bill? We are now considering the Lords Amendments and I certainly did not find the interventions of my hon. and learned Friends the Member for Ketter-ing (Mr. Mitchison) and the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) at all simple on this point.
As far as I understand, the Law Officers of the Crown were not consulted on this question of legal definition. That omission should be explained. It is all very well for the Law Officers to turn up after being sent for. So far we have had a technical discussion which is of interest to lawyers, but the Law Officers do not turn up and apparently they do not do so because—reading between the lines of the Minister's statement—we gather that they were not consulted. I should like to know why the Law Officers are regarded by the Minister as superfluous and why they are not consulted on a matter of legal definition.
We should like the Law Officers to direct our attention to the technical points of law which have been raised by my hon. and learned Friends and to give us guidance. We recognise that that is very difficult because they have not heard the speeches from this side of the House and it is now necessary for someone to repeat to them the criticisms which have been made. I hope that we may now have the benefit of the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General so that those of us with lay minds, who have not understood the interventions of my hon. and learned Friends, may now understand whether this Lords Amendment is necessary or not.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Now that the Attorney-General is here, I should like to put this point to him, as he was not here before.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That does not entitle the hon. and learned Member to speak a second time without the leave of the House.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With respect, I did not make a speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I rose to supplement the request of my hon. Friend, and I said only two or three words.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have only just come into the Chamber, but I understood

from what the hon. and learned Member said that he had been called before. Perhaps I am wrong and I apologise.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is a problem which I wish to put to the Attorney-General, and in order that he might inform his mind, I should like him to look first at Clause 1. He will see in that Clause a provision which compels the Commission to dispose of its property. In order to limit that provision an Amendment is now before us from another place which excludes money and various other matters. The first problem which I should like the Attorney-General to consider is this: if money is to be excluded, what becomes of the situation when the property of the Commission has been sold and has been converted into money? The Lords Amendment obviously means that the Commission will not be compelled to dispose of that money.
The Minister says, however, "That is all very well, but under Clause 5 (2):
'The Minister may give directions to the Commission, as respects any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, requiring them to dispose of that property otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit, and the Commission shall comply with any such directions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me complete my point. The Minister is seeking by this Amendment to cut down that power in Clause 5 because the Amendment controls the provision in Clause 5 to which I have just alluded. It says:
(6) Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do, to dispose of any property, being money or being a claim for a debt or other monetary claim.
Therefore, the right which the Minister has told the House he now has to defeat any recalcitrance on the part of the Commission is itself defeated by the provisions of this Lords Amendment, and as soon as the property of the Commission is disposed of and becomes converted into money it falls within the ambit of the Amendment, and the Minister can do nothing about it, because if the Amendment is passed any right to do so is put out of his power.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: The Amendment could be helpful to the purpose of the Bill, but I wonder if it is


sufficiently wide. I think that the Minister was ill-advised in making his suggestion that if we did not agree with him completely we should take this matter to a Division and dispose of it without delay. That is a little unworthy after all the tributes paid from all parts of the House to those people who have endeavoured to improve the Bill once its principle was established.
I wish to put a simple point. The Commission enters into arrangements with traders in regard to claims which run both ways—from the Commission and from the trader. I wonder if the Amendment is sufficiently wide to take those agreements into account; they represent money or claims on either side. One of the arrangements is that the trader offers his goods to the Commission for conveyance by the Road Haulage Executive at certain rates; and arising from that conveyance it is known that over a period of time certain claims for loss, damage, breakage, etc., are due to the trader from the Commission.
As I say, an agreement is entered into between the Commission and the trader for repayment to the trader of a proportion of the rates which have been agreed upon between the two for conveyance as an assessment of the loss, damage, breakage, etc., of the goods being conveyed by the Commission. That represents an asset, a claim, a sum of money as between the Commission and the trader. The important point is that it is a continuing agreement between the two which—this is what I should like to direct the Minister's attention to—may not terminate by the disposal envisaged in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is a continuing arrangement between the trader and the Commission which is advantageous to both and represents an actual money advantage, a claim advantage, to both.
Recognising, as I do, the value of this Amendment from another place to the general purpose of the Bill, I wish to ask the Minister, in line with the viewpoint which he has taken towards the suggestions that have been made at all stages of the Bill, to take cognisance of that series of agreements at present in force between traders and the Commission, and which will continue to run. I ask that because, as I see it, those arrangements, claims, etc., are not picked up or

specifically brought within the purport of the Clause by this Lords Amendment. This is an increasingly important development in the transit arrangements between the Commission and the trader, and I do not want it to be overlooked in relation to the Amendment which the House is now considering.
I urge the Minister to widen, if necessary, the purpose of this Amendment, to give consideration to the matters which I have put before the House, which I know are not of general knowledge. They are, however, practical arrangements which suit both parties and which have been entered into between the trader and the Commission, and ought to represent a valuable asset to the Commission and to the trader. I should like to be assured that they will not be excluded from the purpose of this Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Are we not to hear from the Attorney-General following the request that has been made by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House that he should listen to the argument and then give us the benefit of his great wisdom? Of course, it is almost impossible for him to do so when he comes into the House knowing nothing about the matter under discussion, and has to sit on the Front Bench and be advised by the Minister.
It is a scandalous state of affairs when we have a legal point of this kind, when we have no Law Officers here at the beginning of the debate, and now that they are here—at least the Attorney-General is here; the Solicitor-General was here but he has now gone—neither is able to tell us anything about the matter. We have heard five or six speeches, most of them from lawyers on this side of the House; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), among others, has already given us his point of view. Now we want to know the answers to the questions which have been asked, and this is the opportunity for the Attorney-General to shine and to show how brilliant he is. He has come here, but apparently he does not intend to say anything. Does he know nothing about the matter?
A number of speeches from hon. Members opposite have been made from a brief supplied by civil servants. Since we started considering this Bill we have


suffered from speeches by hon. Members who know nothing at all about this industry. The Minister has been in a 'bus and has driven a car, and that is about all he knows about transport. He has, no doubt, learned a little since he has been in office and he is doing very well; if he stays in the job for another five or 10 years he may learn more. But I want to put it on record so that it can be noted in HANSARD that the Attorney-General is failing in his duty to satisfy this House on a legal point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not right that when a question has been put specifically to a Law Officer and he is asked for an answer, he ought to give the answer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether it is right or not. It is certainly not a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: Whether or not it is a point of order is a matter for you to decide, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am sure the House will accept your Ruling without question. But if it is not a point of order it is a point of common sense. There are duties upon the Government, and one of them is at least to make the legislation for which they ask intelligible to the House of Commons in the first place. That is what they have most plainly failed to do.
I should like to begin by making a confession. Before the debate started, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) drew my attention to this Amendment and, having read it on the Paper, I said "Well, that seems plain enough." Since then I have had the disadvantage of hearing two explanations from the Government Front Bench. What seemed plain when it appeared out of any context on the Order Paper has now become completely meaningless. I should think, to anybody in the House, and conspicuously to the Minister himself.
At an earlier stage in this discussion attention was drawn to the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers are both old Members of the House of Commons and are very respectful to its traditions. Hardly a minute elapsed from the time that attention was called to their absence, when they both arrived in the Chamber. One of them has left since.
I am sure they will not think that I am disrespectful to them or to their high office when I remind them that when people complained of their absence they did not do so because they wanted to gaze admiringly at the Law Officers across the Floor of the House. They wanted them here to explain matters which the Government had conspicuously failed to explain. There is no point in them coming in and listening to what goes on, and then walking out leaving us all as mystified as we were when they came in, unless indeed it is an act of prudence on their part, believing that any attempt to clarify this completely inexplicable jumble of Amendments and definitions would leave confusion worse confounded.
4.45 p.m.
Where are we at the moment? In the first place, we have Clause 1 of the Bill as it left this House, which lays a duty upon the Road Haulage Executive to get rid of its property. That was plain enough, at any rate. It was completely unlimited. There was only one thing that this Government wanted the Road Haulage Executive to do with the property, and that was to get rid of it to anybody at any price as quickly as possible. It may not have been good politics or good sense, but at any rate we all knew what it meant.
Having got so far, we read the interpretation Clause at the end of the Bill and we found that it was not quite such plain sailing as it had been when Clause 1 was not interpreted by the interpretation Clause. At that point it was said that property does not include a mere contractual right. So there is some modification of the duty on the Road Haulage Executive to get rid of its property quickly, not to include a mere contractual right.
That was perhaps not quite so intelligible as the uninterpreted Clause at the beginning of the Bill had been, but at any rate it was capable of understanding—until the Earl of Selkirk got hold of it in another place, and then he decided that it was not good enough. He wanted to limit it still further. He wanted on page 40, line 42, to insert at the end:
Provided that, in this Act, 'property' includes claims for debts and other monetary claims.
Having first decided that it shall not include mere contractual rights, it is now


said that it is to include claims for debts, which I should have thought were contractual rights, and other monetary claims, which I should have thought were contractual rights. That was added to the Bill in another place.

Mr. Callaghan: What date was that?

Mr. Silverman: It was on 12th March. 1953, in column 1521, of the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT.
This Amendment to which I have just referred is on the Order Paper, but it is not the one which we are now dealing. We are, of course, bound to refer to it, as the Minister did, because the Amendment with which we are dealing is said to be consequential upon it. That is what we are asked to understand.
Having decided first that the Road Haulage Executive shall sell everything, and then that they shall sell everything except contractual rights, and then sell everything except contractual rights except claims for debts and other monetary claims—one fits the one exception inside the other exception—in consequence of all that we are asked to decide now that
Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do, to dispose of any property, being money or being a claim for a debt or other monetary claim.
The form of the Amendment is remarkable. If people do things or do not do things because they think fit so to do or do not think fit so to do, no question of compulsion arises. This Amendment says:
Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do …
At the best, the words "unless they think fit so to do" should not be in the Amendment, whatever it means. That is surely quite clear. The Amendment then adds another exception, to be interwoven somehow or other with the pattern of exceptions and exceptions within exceptions, and further exceptions within that, namely:
… money or … a claim for a debt or other monetary claim.
This is the British Parliament attempting to deal in an intelligible, if not responsible, way with the property of the British people. It may be that this is as simple as the Minister says, or that he thinks it is; but no other hon. Member,

at the end of the past half hour's discussion, has the faintest notion what this is about.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South) indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: Nobody has yet said they have. So far the noble Lord has failed conspicuously to offer any enlightenment to the rest of us. He has heard many distinguished and intelligent Members of the House—Members who monopolised the discussion before this Bill went to the other place—confess that they do not know what this Amendment means. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) does not know what it means. It may be that there are other hon. Members who are more intelligent, but there are not very many. I am not sure that the noble Lord is one of them, and I am certain that the Minister is not.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison); my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has spent his whole life in the transport industry, and a number of other hon. Members who have no great interest in or knowledge of the transport industry but whose profession is the interpretation and application of Acts of Parliament in so far as the courts are called upon to understand and apply them, have all said that they do not understand this Amendment.
They have asked for explanations from the Government and the Minister has done his rather inadequate best to answer the points raised but he has succeeded only in confusing us much more than we were confused at the beginning. The Attorney-General is now here. Will not he help us? Will not he come to the rescue of his colleague? That is why we asked him to come. If he does not want to afford any assistance to hon. Members on this side of the House, will he not at least come to the rescue of the Minister—a good man struggling in adversity, as he has been for so long—and help him out?
I quite appreciate that the Attorney-General may not have had very much time to consider this matter. The Minister, in his simplicity, thought that this was a simple point; that is why he did not ask the Law Officers about it. We have all been doing our best for the Attorney-General. We have been enabling him to


read all the Amendments and be told about the speeches which have been made, so that he can be informed on everything that has taken place this afternoon. He has a very quick mind and I have no doubt that, as the point is so simple and so easily understood and explained, he will now explain it to us so that we can begin to understand what all this business is about.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Are we not to have a reply from the Attorney-General? Surely the House is being treated in an extraordinary and quite unaccustomed manner. We are discussing what is essentially a point of legal definition—the definition of "property" which the Commission shall be permitted or not permitted to dispose of. After listening to this discussion and having heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) it is quite clear to non-lawyers like myself that complicated legal questions are involved. What is not plain to me is what are the answers to those questions.
We started this debate without any Law Officers of the Crown upon the benches opposite. It was at the invitation of my right hon. Friends, through the Minister, that the two Law Officers were sent for. After an interval of some minutes they both arrived. At first they sat rather coyly at the end of the Front Bench, apparently not able to pluck up courage to join the debate, but after a little further invitation—although the Solicitor-General's heart failed him and he slunk out of the Chamber altogether—the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General came up into the front rank.
I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that the Attorney-General is either ignorant of this point or unable to understand the legal issue which is involved. It is evident that he has given it careful study, no doubt when the Bill was being drafted, and certainly when it was proceeding through the House of Lords. I appeal to him to join with us in understanding that it will not merely illuminate but abbreviate this debate if he now gives us the benefit of his knowledge and answers the legal questions which have been asked, particularly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member

for Kettering and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.
I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman now knows what are the questions. I am sure he knows the answers, and though they may be simple in the view of the Minister, this is an examination of an Amendment not just by the Minister but by the House of Commons. Its meaning should surely be made clear, therefore, particularly for those who are not lawyers, before hon. Members make up their minds about it.
I am sure that the Government would not like to expose themselves to the criticism that they are attempting to push through this part of the Bill without due consideration or understanding. I therefore appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to give us this afternoon the benefit of the knowledge and lucidity with which he is so plainly most fully equipped.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: I hope we shall have the benefit of the opinion of the Attorney-General. The House of Commons are being treated in a very unkind way. The suggestion was properly put to the Minister that the Law Officers of the Crown should be here, and he promised to send for them. They arrived, though one has since left. I think it is without precedent that a Law Officer should arrive here for the specific purpose of giving his opinion and should then not give it. After all, the legal profession is used to giving its opinion quickly; many of its members are asked to read a brief in court without any previous briefing by solicitors.
When I first saw this Lords Amendment I was much attracted by it, although I should have liked to shorten it a little so that it read:
Nothing in this section shall compel the Commission, unless they think fit so to do, to dispose of any property
and finished there. It would then have been quite a good Amendment. There is a matter of real doubt here, and since we have had so many legal and lay opinions as to what this Amendment means, in common courtesy the Attorney-General should give us his opinion.
The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I cannot possibly refrain from responding to such an invitation as that which I have just received. The suggestion that I was being unkind to the hon.


Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) is one which would certainly bring me to my feet, if nothing else would.
I find it very difficult to see what legal question arises here. There is no doubt of one thing—that without this Amendment to Clause 1 the Commission were required to dispose of everything which could be described as property. Now, property in its ordinary meaning may well be held to include debts or monetary claims or even cash received from sales, and the policy is that they should not be compelled to dispose of such things.
5.0 p.m.
It was, therefore, necessary to do two things—first of all, to make sure that the definition of property in the Act was clearly laid down as including those things and, then, to say that they should not be included in the property which the Commission were bound to dispose of. As I understand, that is what has been done. When the word "being" is used, it means any property which is money or is
a claim for a debt or other monetary claim
but not any other property. I do not see any difficulty about that at all. If I have kept the House waiting, I must apologise, but I was waiting until I heard something which seemed to be a doubtful question of law and I had no intention of intervening at all except on such a point. When that heart-rending appeal was made to me. however. I felt that I must intervene.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the Attorney-General a question before he sits down? I am bound to seek his knowledge in these matters because I am rather puzzled. Is a claim for damages in any circumstances an "other monetary claim"? Perhaps I may give the kind of case I have in mind. Suppose there has been an accident to a servant of the Commission and, in the circumstances of the case, the Commission have some right to claim for the loss of his service. Is that one of the rights which the Commission may retain?
May I put it in another way? There are rights and obligations which can be disposed of in connection with transport units or to companies. Do the "other monetary claims" and such rights and

obligations as can be attached to motor units or sold to companies, if the Commission think fit. cover the lot?

The Attorney-General: The answer is that it is, provided that a great legal authority such as the hon. and learned Member is able to advise the person in the case in point that, as a matter of law, he has a claim for "debt or other monetary claim." It depends on the circumstances.

Mr. Mitchison: The Commissioners, not the individual.

The Attorney-General: Certainly. But that must be decided in the particular circumstances. We cannot give an answer that it would be so in every conceivable case. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows much more about that branch of the law than I do and if. as a matter of law, one can say that there is a claim for "debt or other monetary claim," it certainly would be included.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this other question? In the advice which he has given, does a monetary claim mean a claim in money or is it used in a sense in which it is used for other purposes—a claim to a fixed sum of money? Is it not possible to clarify the matter?

The Attorney-General: I do not see any reason why both should not be included from the point of view of the policy in the Clause.

Mr. S. Silvennan: May I put to the Attorney-General what I hope is a simpler question? Would he care to explain the meaning of the words "unless they think fit so to do"? If they do not mean anything, which appears to be the case, does he not propose to put down an Amendment to leave them out?

The Attorney-General: I do not think they do anything more than make it perfectly clear.

Mr. Callaghan: I must say that that seems to be a rather inadequate answer to a perfectly good point. The Lords Amendment says that the Commission shall not be compelled to do certain things, and then words are inserted to the effect "unless they see fit so to do."

Mr. Silverman: In which case they can be compelled.

Mr. Cailaghan: I take it that that is the logical meaning. Certainly these seem to be the sort of words which draftsmen love to put into Bills without any regard to the sense.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is this a second speech?

Mr. Callaghan: It is not a second speech. If the noble Lord cares to make a first speech of his own, we shall be glad to listen to him. Hon. Members opposite apparently intend to run the proceedings this evening. If they do, we shall have more words to say. The only time I have been on my feet during the debate so far has been to ask the Minister to consider postponing the Lords Amendment. He did not do so and we had to await the arrival of the Attorney-General, who very kindly gave us his advice. This is the first speech I have made on the substance of the Lords Amendment and it will be the last speech I shall make on the substance of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. E. Partridge: Thank goodness.

Mr. Cailaghan: If the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) wishes to be relieved of hearing more speeches from me, he had better leave the Chamber, because I fear he will hear more from me this evening. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to assist us. He has made one thing abundantly clear—and I do not know whether he was fully conscious of the importance of his words when he uttered them. He said that this enabled the Commission to retain no other property than that included in the Lords Amendment.
That is precisely the advice which we wished to get clear and which he has now cleared up for us. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under that distinct impression—that the Commission are unable to keep any other property. What about the other Clauses? There is nothing in the other Clauses either, unless it is property which, as the Minister pointed out earlier, is jointly held for the purpose of the road haulage undertaking and some other undertaking.
The Minister referred us to a later Amendment. I must say that I thought he was trying to be a bit of a "Smart Alec" when he suggested that we had not

read the Amendments, because I can assure him that a number of us have spent a very long time on them. The Amendment to which he referred us was in the middle of page 6 and it deals, as I understand it—and I am not a lawyer—with property, which is mainly land, which is jointly held for two purposes: it may be owned by the Commission and used partly for the road haulage undertaking and partly for the railways.
But that is not the point I am discussing. I fully understand that point because I can assure the Minister that I have lived with the Bill for almost as long as he has. I fully comprehend that under subsection (5), and particularly the last paragraph of subsection (5), the Commission are able to hold such property, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman made clear—unless he wishes to go back on that advice—is that they cannot retain any other property.
This is our quarrel with the Clause. I agree that the Commission are being compelled to get rid at a substantial loss of a large number of roadworthy vehicles which are now operating at a respectable profit, and which are making a profit this year in spite of the best efforts of the Minister to prevent them from doing so. Although they are being required to get rid of those vehicles, they are, nevertheless, keeping a large number of other vehicles. They are keeping all the vehicles in the collection and delivery service of the railways, which number some thousands, and, as the Bill is now drafted, they are enabled to keep a large number of other vehicles as a result of the Amendments which the Minister has made.
The point about which I am dissatisfied, and the reason why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said we were not satisfied with this Lords Amendment, as it stands, is simply that the Bill, and this Lords Amendment in particular, are so narrowly drawn that the Commission have no right to make over to the collection and delivery services of the railways any stores which may be in the possession of the Road Haulage Executive and which they would like to make over to them for the purpose of helping to run more efficiently those thousands of vehicles which belong to the railways.
Under the Clause as it stands—and the Lords Amendment makes it no wider—


they are required to dispose of every spanner, every fitment, everything which the Road Haulage Executive has. and—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is making a series of rather spectacular allegations. He does, I hope, recollect that the Commission are to retain a substantial number of vehicles. Under Clause 4 they can use the company structure for the part they are retaining. With the company structure, of course, go those things that a company possess, spares and all the other things the hon. Gentleman has been so glibly talking about.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister really cannot get away with that. He knows as well as I do that there are a great many spares and stores of one sort and another that are in the possession of the Commission today that have a fairly considerable value, and that they may not want to make over to a company that they are going to form under another Lords Amendment to be considered later.
Suppose, for example, we have a company to which an adequate number of spares is made over in a particular area. What then are the Commission to do with the spares, stores, land, accommodation, office buildings and the rest of it that they may not desire to sell as part of a transport unit—I am not using the word "company," be it noted—which may, indeed, not be in an area where they are forming a company? What are they to do with all that? The answer at the moment is that they have to dispose of it as chattels. They have to get rid of it.
The Minister keeps on boasting that he wishes, by this Bill, to make it possible for the small man to return to the industry, and to sell off units of one vehicle, two vehicles, three vehicles, and so on. Suppose that in Cardiff, in my constituency, he decides, as it is finally within his power to do, that the Commission are to dispose of and break up a very efficient unit into three-vehicle lots and sell them off. Let me tell the Minister what I think he already knows—I have mentioned it before—that in my constituency there happens to be a most efficient stores depot of British Road Services in which there are stores and spares of every description that are necessary for the large unit that exists today. No man who intends to buy one vehicle or two

vehicles or three vehicles will buy that storage depot. It is not within his means to do so, in any case.
Therefore, it will not go into the company the Minister so glibly—I retort to him—so glibly tries to assure us will ensure adequate disposal of those stores, spares and other property. This property will be excluded from the transport unit, and it will not be included in the company. It falls between the two, and what the Commission will be reduced to doing under this Lords Amendment as it stands will be to sell those spares, this carefully accumulated store of materials bought during a period of comparatively high prices for particular purposes, as scrap, junk, for any value they can get.
That is the charge against the Minister. It is one he has not faced up to, and it is for that reason that we are thoroughly dissatisfied with the Lords Amendment as it stands. We thank the Attorney-General for making it clear. The Minister's spite against the Commission is such that he will not allow them even to retain spares and stores that they could retain for the benefit of other parts of their undertaking; but he insists they should be sold at junk prices, for whatever value can be got. He says, by this Lords Amendment, that all they can retain is the actual cash they have got in the till. We believe it to be a gross discrimination against the Commission, and another instance of the Minister's vendetta against them. For that reason we shall divide against this Lords Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I do not wish to detain the House on this matter, but as I listened to the debate, and particularly to the legal arguments, I understood why, the other night, in my sleep, I was making a most impassioned speech in the House of Commons which brought me into conflict with the Chair and necessitated my removal by the responsible Officer of the House.
Something may have become clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but nothing has become clear to me. I have read every word that has been spoken on this Bill since Second Reading, because, unfortunately, I was in bed at the time of the Committee and Report stages, and my


reading was the HANSARD report of those proceedings. I have read all the proceedings on the Bill in another place, too. I now find myself in this dilemma: I do not know what is the definition of property. Having listened to the Attorney-General it seems to me that there are now two definitions of what is property in this Bill.
I have no legal background at all, for which I am very thankful, but as a simple man I find that on 12th March the Earl of Selkirk, during the Committee stage on the Bill in another place, successfully moved an Amendment on behalf of the Government, saying that he wished the definition of property to be rather wider. He said:
In particular, we wish it to include debts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1521.]
Property, then, was to include debts. An Amendment was moved in another place to enable it to include debts.
However, on 18th March, on the Report stage in another place, the Government moved an Amendment, which we are now asked to approve, to exclude debts from the definition of property. There may be a very simple explanation which the Minister can understand, but I cannot understand why, on 12th March, it was necessary to move an Amendment to include debts and now we are being troubled with this Lords Amendment which seeks specifically to exclude money or claims for debts or other monetary claims.
The Government's record on this Bill has been lamentable. The proposals of the Bill were initially contained in a White Paper. If the White Paper be the father of the Transport Bill, the father does not know its own child now. It seems as if the Government did not know what they really wanted. On 12th March, after all the tortuous proceedings through which this Bill had gone in this House and in another place, the Government sought one thing; it was necessary, six days later, to move an Amendment undoing what they have sought to do on 12th March. If I am wrong I shall be very happy to be put right, but it seems to me that under the interpretation Clause property includes debts, and the Earl of Selkirk said he wanted it to include debts, and now we are being troubled with a

Lords Amendment to enable the Commission to exclude them if they think fit. The whole thing leaves me more amazed than when we started this debate an hour and a half ago.
Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. None of us heard any voices in support of this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Chair gives what it anticipates is the view of the House, irrespective of the noise.

Mr. Callaghan: If no one says "Aye," Mr. Deputy-Speaker, surely it is not possible to say that the "Ayes" have it. There was no utterance of any sort from the other side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say the "Ayes" had it. I said that I thought the "Ayes" had it. I may prove right or wrong.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, are we to take it that if no one calls "Aye" on an Amendment it is still possible to declare that the "Ayes" have it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Oh, yes. When there has been no voice of any kind I have often announced a decision, without a soul speaking.

Mr. Silverman: Surely the immemorial practice is to collect the voices each way, and if there is a conflict to call upon the House to divide, "Ayes" to the right, "Noes" to the left, and so on. But if there is no conflict when the voices are collected, surely the decision ought to go in favour of those people who shouted, and as nobody in the House shouted anything except "No" the decision should go to them.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I definitely shouted "Aye."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Leslie Hale: (seated and covered): On a point of order. I respectfully submit to you, Sir Charles, that, no votes having been recorded for the "Ayes," the Motion was automatically lost by the declaration of the "Noes." There would be no other method by which the Government could declare their intention of not pressing the


Motion if the Opposition had said they were going to take it to a Division, except by not voting for this Amendment, which is the course they took.
In those circumstances, I do venture respectfully to submit to you that, the Motion having been lost it cannot be put again, and that in putting the Motion again we are reversing the immemorial practice of the House, which is that mistakes cannot be corrected, that if in Committee an Amendment is wrongly put by mistake on the part of the Government, or if the Minister in charge says "Aye" when he should have said "No," there is no method of correction except by putting the whole matter on the Order Paper again and raising it in the ordinary way. I suggest that the House has no power to take a second Division.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Whip on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Member for Croydon, West (Mr. R. Thompson), said "Aye," although certainly very quietly.

Mr. Frank Bowles: (seated and covered): On a point of order. You yourself admitted that nobody had said "Aye." You said that you anticipated what might be the decision in the end, but you admitted that nobody had said "Aye." In those circumstances, I submit, with great respect, that the Division is over and that the "Noes" have won.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Even if "Aye" had not been said I could say I thought the "Ayes" had it, and the "Noes" could challenge my opinion. It has been done scores of times. The hon. Gentleman

himself has, I am sure, called Divisions without anyone speaking on either side.

Mr. Bowles: My answer to you there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that when I was in the Chair quite often the Opposition of that time said that they had shouted "No" when they had not, and over and over again I was able to show how they were contradicting themselves. I have not set a precedent for what you are now doing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a different point, of course. The vote must follow the voices. That is one of the rules.

Mr. Burden: (seated and covered): On a point of order. It is quite untrue to say that hon. Members on this side did not say "Aye." I and others shouted "Aye."

Mr. S. Silverman: (seated and covered): On a point of order. You having admitted that there were, in fact, no voices for the "Ayes," Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you should not have declared "The Ayes have it."

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: (seated and covered): On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It has been reported to me that after the order had been given, "Lock the doors," a number of Members got through, which is irregular. Therefore, we have to have the Division again.

Question again put, "That the House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 289: Noes, 266.

Division No. 127]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Nigel
Channon, H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Black, C. W.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bossom, A. C.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Arbuthnot, John
Bowen, E. R.
Cole, Norman


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Colegate, W. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baker, P. A. D.
Braine, B. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Banks, Col. C
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baxter, A. B.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Digby, S. Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carr, Robert
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cary, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA




Donner, P. W.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A
Kerr, H. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Duncan, Capl. J. A. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R


Duthie. W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Renton, D. L. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpoel, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Finlay, Graeme
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morcambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, R. Donald


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Garner-Evans. E, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hen. O.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McAdden, S. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Godber, J, B.
McCallum, Major D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macdenald, Sir Peter
Soames, Capt. C.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, A. J.
Speir, R. M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Grimond, J.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Nialt (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Hare, Hon J. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major S. F.
Summers, G. S.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Teeling, W.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thornon-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Tilney, John


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Touche, Sir Gorden


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vosper, D. F.


Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wade, D. W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Horobin, I, M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wakefield Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Oakshott, H. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (IIford, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wellwood, W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Osborne, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wills, G.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pickthorn. K. W. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
York, C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Pitman, I. J.



Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Sir H. Butcher and Mr. R. Thompson.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bence, C. R.


Albu, A. H.
Baird, J.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Benson, G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bartley, P.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Awbery, S. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Blackburn, F.







Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brock way, A. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Coldrick, W.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Collick, P. H.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kinky, J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, J. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Driberg, T. E. N.
McInnes, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt Hon. H. A.
Thornton, E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mason, Roy
Timmons, J


Follick, M.
Mayhew. C. P.
Tomney, F.


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Forman, J. C.
Messer, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lyne


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Usborne, H. C.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Weitzman, D.


Glanville, James
Morley, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grenfell, Rt Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W)
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hargreaves, A.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Hobson, C. R.
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghion, Douglas
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Royle and Mr. J. Taylor.


Hoy, J. H.
Porter, G.



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Ian Harvey: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a question of procedure? During the altercation which has just ended, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), asked a question when seated and covered by a hat provided by the Serjeant at Arms. Subsequently, when the hat was required on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) prevented it from being passed over. [Hon. Members: "No."] I distinctly saw it. I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether that hat should, in fact, be the property of one side or the other, and whether, in order to avoid a similar incident, the Serjeant at Arms could provide two hats?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Points of order were raised on both sides of the House and I was satisfied that in each case the hon. Member raising it was suitably covered and seated. Perhaps I should point out that in page 392 of Erskine May it is made perfectly clear that the Chair says "I think"—which I said—"the Ayes have it," and if his opinion is challenged a Division takes place.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Further to that point of order. I do not wish to pursue unduly the matter which arose earlier, but my understanding is that nobody on the other side said "Aye."

Mr. John Maclay: On a point of order.

Mr. Morrison: I am on a point of order. In these circumstances, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I only put the point for your consideration and our future guidance. I should have thought that it was really impossible for the Chair to say that the "Ayes" had it when not a single "Aye" was uttered. I quite agree that the voices seem louder one way or the other and that the Chair has to decide which seem the loudest, but in this case there was no voice at all for the "Ayes."
There is another point I want to raise which is related to this and that is that on page 403 of Erskine May it is stated, among other things, that on a Division being called the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, gives the order "Clear the Lobby," and the Tellers' doors in both Lobbies are locked. We were listening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and

we did not hear you say "Clear the Lobby." This was on the first Division. I should like to know for our guidance whether, according to Erskine May, it appears to be necessary that the Chair should say "Clear the Lobby," as otherwise the Division is not authentic. I should like your Ruling, therefore—apart from the view you gave as to why the first Division was abortive—as to whether it was not also abortive because you did not say "Clear the Lobby." it is the very clear recollection of all of us that those words were not uttered.
Finally, I wish to make the point that if the first Division had been upheld as authentic—several of my hon. Friends were engaged in discussing while seated and covered various points of order with you, and it was necessary that some of my colleagues should stay and listen, and, if necessary, take part in the disputation—it really would have been rather severe on us if, in fact, because of raising legitimate points of order as we thought, whether rightly or wrongly, our names had not been recorded in the Division.
We are obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for calling the second Division, but I wish to raise for further guidance, first, whether, if nobody says "No" or "Aye," as the case may be, it is presumptive evidence that the other side have it. Is it not necessary that the Speaker, the Deputy-Speaker or the Chairman should in putting the Question say "Clear the Lobby," and that otherwise the Division is abortive?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not realise that I did not say "Clear the Lobby." If I did not, it was a mistake. I have called a great many Divisions, and I do not know how I came to make that mistake. However, I humbly apologise for the mistake if, in fact, I did not say so. When there is a Division, I always say "Clear the Lobby," because that starts the whole machine. I can hardly believe that I did not say it.

Mr. S. Silverman: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is not merely the first Division which was abortive; the second was, too. The point I wish to put to you is that the second Division was abortive because it was a Division taken upon a Question that the House had already decided. You made it perfectly clear that you did not hear any Member of


the House say "Aye." I am not concerned with whether an hon. Member sitting at the end of the front bench below the Gangway on the Government side, at a very belated stage, recollected that he had clearly said "Aye." My point is that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, did not hear him, and that therefore the point has to be considered on the basis that so far as you are concerned nobody had said "Aye."
In those circumstances, if nobody has said "Aye" and others say "No," then that Question has been decided in the negative, and, with respect, it is the duty of the Chair so to declare. To proceed from that point to say "Lock the doors" and to purport to take a Division which turns out to be abortive anyhow, and when that is clearly abortive then to proceed to take a Division upon a matter which has already been concluded is surely contrary to the rules and practice of the House.
I submit that it is a very important question because, if I am right, the Government have been defeated without a dissentient voice on an important aspect of major Government policy, and it would be most unfortunate if they were rescued from that position by the misapplication of the rules of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think there was any misapplication of the rules of the House. The Chair says, "I think the Ayes have it," or "I think the Noes have it."

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is quite true that the Chair may say, "I think the Ayes have it." That means that the Chair has heard some hon. Members say "Aye" and some say "No," and in the best exercise of his discretion and judgment he thinks that one side or the other has it. But it is impossible for anyone to think that the "Ayes" have it if no one has said "Aye."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: One says what one thinks, and the fact that I said what I thought was right was proved by the Division. I think there can be no complaint.

Mr. John Maclay: In order to have it on the record, I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before the Division

was actually called, but failed as my voice is not as loud as that of some hon. Members opposite. I distinctly heard my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) say "Aye." In view of the statements that have been made by hon. Members opposite, I am anxious that that should be clear.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is not whether anybody said "Aye" or not. I thought the "Ayes" had it, which I am quite entitled to think. I may be proved wrong, and there may be a Division. One does not judge by the volume of noise but by one's own judgment.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely it would be a wholly unprecedented thing in the whole annals of the House of Commons for any presiding officer to presume to think that a majority of the House of Commons was in favour or against a particular question if nobody gives him any evidence whatever on which to found any opinion at all. It is not enough for Mr. Speaker or his Deputy to say, "I think the Ayes have it." Before he is under a duty to express such an opinion and proceed to a Division, there must be some conflict which the Chair determines by expressing the best opinion and the best judgment, but until such a conflict has expressed itself in the collection of voices there is no room for an opinion by the Chair and the Chair would have no right even to form an opinion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair says what it thinks and those who disagree can challenge it. That is how we go to a Division. That has always been the custom in the House. The next Order which I give is "Clear the Lobby." It is all perfectly simple and straightforward.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better get on to the next Amendment.

Clause 2. —(ROAD HAULAGE DISPOSAL BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 18, at end, insert:
The report for any period shall set out any direction given by the Minister to the Board during that period.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at end, add:
and any action taken by the Board in compliance with such direction.


This Amendment raises a matter of very considerable importance and I am afraid that I shall have to dwell a little on the point to appreciate what is really involved. The Lords Amendment adds, at the end of line 18, on page 4, a provision that any directions given by the Minister are to be included in the report which the Board is called upon to make from time to time at least once every six months, and a copy of which is to be laid before each House of Parliament. This Amendment seeks to add to that that there shall also be included in the report and, therefore, laid before this House any action take by the Board in compliance with such directions.
It is important, I suggest, to see what those directions will actually be and in the original Bill they appeared on page 6 in Clause 3 (8):
If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board as to the lines on which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under this section "—
the Board's duties under this Section are to sell transport units—
or as lo what properties should be included in, or what should be the conditions attached to the purchase of, any transport unit, or as to whether any tender for a transport unit should or should not be accepted, either the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions therein as he thinks fit, and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.
The procedure of the Commission is to be to invite tenders for transport units, but in performing their duties under the Clause the Commission has to consult the Board and under subsection (7) the lines of policy settled from time to time must meet with the approval of the Board. Then it goes on to say that:
… no invitation to tender for a transport unit shall be issued by the Commission without the approval of the Board and no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board.
There is a further provision as to the Board being satisfied about the price.
Broadly speaking, both the Commission and the Board have obligations of first-class importance on any view of any matter under this subsection, not only as regards specific tenders and whether they are to be accepted or refused, but also on a much more sweeping type of matter, to consider—and these are the lines on

which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under the subsection—how one of the main purposes of the Bill is to be carried out.
I suggest that the two bodies concerned represent different points of view or different aspects of the process of sale. The Commission will be concerned in disposing of their property and also with their obligations, partly connected with the railways of the country and partly as a large and, in some cases, rather special owner of permanent road services that, in one form or another or for one purpose or another, remain at their disposal directly and indirectly.
Therefore, the Commission's point of view is the point of view that affects the whole interests of the country, and the responsibilities which He on the Commission make it necessary for the Commission to look far beyond the mere business of each individual sale, and consider the transport system as a whole and, particularly of course, those parts of it for which it will remain responsible. I mean by that, the railway services and the road services which will have been retained.
The Board, on the other hand, is wholly and primarily—I was going to say "only" and I do not think that is too strong—a selling body, concerned with nothing else than the mere question of getting rid of their property as soon as possible at whatever may be the appropriate price. Therefore, there are going to be questions of difference between the Commission and the Board. The urge on the Commission's side will be the urge in favour of an efficient and reasonable transport system in spite of the Bill, and particularly to look after the Commission's own permanent interests, which are partly rail and partly road, while the urge on behalf of the Board will be a very simple one, to sell as quickly as possible.
It is one of the fundamental defects of the Bill that anybody should be put in the position in which the Board is put under the Bill, having regard to the need for an integrated transport system and to the importance of it to the country. However, there it is, and so long as that is the function of the Board, and so long as the Commission has these other and wider functions and responsibilities, there is bound to be a conflict from time to


time. I am not talking about a conflict with regard to any specific invitation to tender but as to the general lines of selling policy.
6.0 p.m.
It is on that matter specifically, among others, that the Minister may issue directions and may decide between them. The Board, which is the selling agency, has to report from time to time what those directions are. Where the directions are simply, "You shall accept this bid" or, "You shall refuse this bid," I agree that we should be talking about the merest trifles if we sought to add in the Bill a stipulation that the compliance with the directions of the Minister was also reported. We are, however, going a long way beyond that, because not only is there the general question of the lines of selling policy, but, also, the Board and the Commission will both have to consider something that lies halfway between those two things.
It is for them to decide what rights, obligations and the like should be attached to a transport unit and what property should be composed in it. It seems now that it must necessarily be one of the matters comprised in lines settled from time to time. We have in the Lords Amendments, as was intimated earlier, another method of procedure—that is, the transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares. As regards that, we have among the Amendments one to which I shall not refer in any detail, a new Clause "A."
If we turn to that new Clause we find at the top of page 4 of the Lords Amendments subsection (6) of the new Clause as follows:
If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.
Unless I have misunderstood the intention, those directions also would have to be reported in the six-monthly or other report given by the Board and laid before this House.
When one looks at that new Clause, the matters there involved are also of a sweeping character and, in some ways, broadly parallel with what is involved

in the original Bill. The Commission have to consider whether it is expedient to form these companies at all and, in so doing, they must have regard to matters which are the subject of other Amendments to which we shall come later and, broadly speaking, to this kind of question: how to dispose by way of these companies of road haulage in such a way as to deal best with the need for large units in order to maintain important food services and, on the other hand, the need for small units, if there is such a need, in order to give the small man a chance and, I am sure we should all agree, to avoid a monopoly.
I cannot at this stage go in detail into what we shall have to discuss later, but I hope I have said enough to indicate that the questions upon which directions will be given under the new Clause "A," if it is agreed to, will be at least as important, perhaps even more important, than those which arise under the existing Clause of the Bill and to which this Lords Amendment is to be attached.
In those circumstances, this is the point of this Amendment. If the Minister gives general directions, if indeed he gives any directions which amount to more than the mere question of the acceptance or refusal of some specific bid, is it at all reasonable that, when the Board are making the report, they should report those directions without saying what they have done to carry them out? It becomes even more important when one considers what will happen on a question of selling policy. On the advice given to him, and on his responsible consideration of the position, the Minister will no doubt give broad directions.
Yet, after all, one of the faults and one of the difficulties of this Bill is that the Minister necessarily has to combine the characters of a salesman of public property and a responsible Minister of Transport. In this matter it will be his responsibility to combine those two duties. He may be in proper, full Ministerial control of the transport system of this country, but it takes two to make a sale and he may tell the Commission and the Board between them that they ought to proceed in this way or that way about it, but it will lie with the prospective buyers or, if I may put it more accurately, with Mr. Gibson Jarvie and the United Dominions Trust, as to what


extent the directions of the Minister can be or will be complied with.
After all, we are now putting ourselves into the curious position of being as it were the negotiators of a bargain which may or may not come off but which has to be discussed in this place in full beforehand. Well, let us have all the story. Let us know it from time to time by that report, and let us be able to raise questions in this House, not merely on what the Minister has said should be done but also on what it has proved practicable to do in compliance with his directions.
May I put it a little more generally? If we are merely to have the directions of the Minister without being told what is being done in compliance with them, a report of that kind is a standing invitation to the Minister to issue the vaguest and most general directions, because then nobody will be able to know publicly what the Board or the Commission have been able to do in order to carry them out, and those directions in that form will be the least susceptible to attack and criticism in this House.
I suggest that it will improve the character of the directions of the Minister in the difficult position in which he has necessarily placed himself under this Bill, and it will improve the proper Parliamentary control over this business of a bargain sale of public property, if we are told not merely the broad lines upon which the Minister desires the sale to proceed, but the extent to which, having regard to the buyers and the bankers and the rest of them, it is proved wise or practicable to follow out those lines.
For all those reasons, I urge the House to accept the Amendment. It is a great deal more than a formal matter, and if it is not put in there will be no reality in the concession that was made by the Government in another place, by which they undertook to include in the report the directions given by the Minister. Incidentally, they were not at that time asked to make this addition, because another addition was proposed—and I agree that some of the comments that were made on that proposed addition were not altogether misplaced. This addition, on the other hand, seems to me to be a natural and, indeed, a necessary addition to what is proposed by the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has graphically and at some length explained the reason for the Amendment. Here we have public property being disposed of. It is appreciated that a Disposal Board having been set up to dispose of property of the Commission, there may at some time be a conflict between the Commission and their view as to disposal, and the Disposal Board who have the responsibility for carrying out the sale. In that event provision is made for a decision by the Minister, a direction to the Board, as to his view of the method of sale.
The Lords Amendment in line 18, page 4, is a concession in the right direction, in that where the Minister has given a direction it shall be recorded in the report of the Board. As I understand it, the directions of the Minister may be particular or may be of a general character. One would assume that if there is a dispute as between the Commission and the Board, it would really be on a matter of general character rather than on a particular issue.
Therefore, if a direction of a general character is given by the Minister, and if, as the Minister has agreed to through another place and by the Amendment, his direction shall be recorded in the report, surely it is equally important, urgent and fair to the Minister, to the Commission, to the Disposal Board and to effective Parliamentary control, as and when their report comes before the House if the House calls it for discussion, that the action taken by the Board in response to the Minister's direction should be detailed in the report.
Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment will enhance the value of the concessions made by the Government in the Amendment of another place—which we accept as far as it goes—and we hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment as a step forward in giving greater effect and protection from his point of view and that of the House to the Board and to the Commission.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This point can be fairly easily resolved. Hon. Members who followed the debates in another place—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember this—will recall that the noble Lord—I think, Lord Silkin—moved on the Committee stage an Amendment to require the Minister to lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by the Minister and of any action taken by the Minister under the Bill, together with his reasons.
That would have been clearly impracticable. In the strict letter of the law, it would no doubt demand that every telephone conversation should have been recorded, and noble Lords on both sides in another place eventually came to that conclusion.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Is the Minister moving an Amendment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am replying to the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member, but it makes it more comprehensible to everybody if the House can see this matter very briefly in the setting which has led to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. Perhaps now the hon. Member will follow with the assiduity that he normally shows.
It seems to us that the directions are a different matter. Under the 1947 Act, the Commission are obliged to publish in their annual report any directions issued to them, and this would now cover, of course, any directions issued under the present Bill when it becomes an Act. It seems to us reasonable to require the Disposal Board to do the same.
The hon. and learned Member wants to go a stage further. He wants the action that is taken to carry out the Minister's direction also to be recorded. It seems to me inconceivable that the Disposal Board would not draw attention to any action that they have taken in regard to matters of sufficient importance to be recorded. In order to make quite certain, however, I see no objection to accepting the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

Mr. H. Morrison: I want to ask the Minister a question There are all sorts of stories about of premature efforts being made—officers of the Commission or the Board being seen—with a view to getting information which is related to the possible purchase of vehicles or parts of the undertaking. I understand also that the hauliers' association have already announced, in anticipation of the passing of the Act of Parliament, that they have appointed their representative or representatives on to the Disposal Board.
I do not know whether the Minister can give any information about this, but it seems to me undesirable that while Parliament has a Bill under consideration and before it is passed, prospective purchasers should go hopping about, like vultures or hungry animals of some sort, trying to get a hand on these undertakings before ever the Act of Parliament is passed. I should not have thought it was proper on their part to have selected representatives to sit on the Disposal Board before the Act of Parliament gives them authority to make such a selection. We ourselves do not think that these vested interests ought to sit on the Disposal Board at all. We hear all sorts of things about premature action which is producing a very unhealthy atmosphere.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not really know to what the right hon. Member refers or what relevance this has to the Lords Amendment we are discussing. It is unfortunate, but no doubt in this world it is almost inevitable that some people should take premature action in advance of a Bill which they are entitled to think is likely to become an Act of Parliament. But, as to the Disposals Board, the Road Haulage Association do not appoint them; I appoint them. I take from certain representative users and providers of transport more than one name and from lists submitted I choose the Disposals Board.
I have made no statement whatever in regard to my intentions in that matter, and I shall wait until, in the fullness of time, this Bill receives the Royal Assent. Then I hope very quickly to be able to make such a statement. I do not see how this ties up with the Lords Amendment. I thought the right hon. Member rose to say "thank you" to me for having accepted the Amendment moved by his


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Perhaps he would like to say that now.

Mr. H. Morrison: Thank you. I do not know whether I should go on my bended knees and say "thank you," but I am glad that the Minister has on this occasion taken the very exceptional course of accepting an Opposition Amendment. I hope that what hitherto has been thoroughly exceptional will tend to become the rule.

Clause 3.—(SALES OF TRANSPORT UNITS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 42, leave out:
as between the purchaser and the Commission.

Mr. Braithwaite: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out are unnecessary. I gather that the Opposition take the same view as they have an Amendment on the Order Paper to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 43, to leave out "Part I of."

Mr. Braithwaite: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members will recall that paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of Clause 3 made the provision that what are specified as "additional vehicles" should be deemed
for the purposes of Part 1 of the First Schedule
not to be included in transport units. This was necessary to ensure that they should not carry with them the right to a special A licence granted under Part I of the First Schedule. But the wording might have been taken to imply that they should for the purposes of Part II of the Schedule be part of a transport unit. This Amendment which their Lordships propose makes it clear that they are not to be so deemed for either Part I or Part II. The result, if the House takes that view, will be that the Commission will not be prevented by paragraph 6 of Part II of the Schedule from substituting other vehicles for them in their own licences.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation, but I must say it does not help us very much to understand this rather complicated part of the Bill with the Schedule to which he referred. I think it shows with what haste this Bill was drafted. It seems that only on the Report stage in the House of Lords was it discovered that the reference in this Clause to Part I could be interpreted in an ambiguous manner, and that it was then necessary to take it out.
I think it further shows the inadequate consideration which it was possible to give this Bill while it was going through this House. Owing to the Guillotine, we had to concentrate on the most important matters before us and particularly the Amendments we had put down and we were not able to go into the detailed question of the clarity of the drafting of the Bill. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, this is merely a necessary small drafting Amendment, it rather reflects on the Government for having allowed it to go through right up to the Report stage in the Lords. If it had been allowed to go through without being discovered, I think it would have left the Commission in a difficult position.
I have never been able to understand exactly what the purpose of providing these additional vehicles was. The Bill provides for the creation of transport units on the one hand and then we come to the new Clause A, which will provide for the setting up of companies equally for disposal of sections of the road haulage undertaking. These additional vehicles are in my view something rather extraneous to the Bill and could very well have been left in the control of the Commission.
Be that as it may, we cannot oppose this Lords Amendment because it does clarify the Bill, but I repeat that it is rather a reflection on those responsible for the Bill that a mistake like this—an ambiguous expression like this—in the drafting should have remained right up to the House of Lords.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 46, leave out "the said Part I" and insert
Part I of the said First Schedule.

Mr. Braithwaite: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is purely drafting and consequential on the Lords Amendment to which the House has just agreed.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 6, leave out from "avoiding" to end of line 9, and insert:
any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after the first "lead," to insert:
to the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking passing to persons who by reason of their financial position, the smallness of the unit in question, or otherwise will be unable to secure the continuance of satisfactory road services or.
The Lords Amendment is, I think, in response to certain views originally expressed in this House by Government supporters which the Minister later adopted. Those views were expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), both of whom were very keen about this point, as was the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) who, although he has been here this afternoon, is not in his place just now.
The whole purpose of the Amendment I move is to strengthen the case for the small man. I think that is probably not an unfair way of putting it. The original Bill provided that the transport units to be sold in blocks of vehicles should be sold in such a way that they should not be concentrated into too few hands. Government supporters in particular expressed their view that they were not quite sure what this meant or how far it could be interpreted. I believe they were themselves responsible at least for prompting another place to put down the form of words which now appear on the Lords Amendment Paper and which were accepted by the Government spokesman

in another place. Instead of saying now, as it is submitted to us by the Minister, that the transport units shall not be concentrated in too few hands, the Lords Amendment which the Minister will eventually ask us to accept, says that in the sale of transport units the Commission must avoid
any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition.
6.30 p.m.
It is to that Amendment as at present drafted that we take exception. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) put down the Amendment on the Order Paper which widens the considerations the Commission must have in mind when they are deciding whether to accept a tender. We say the Commission should also have regard to the possibility of their property passing to persons who, by reason of their financial position, or the smallness of the unit they desire to buy, or otherwise, will be unable to secure the continuance of satisfactory road services.
Here I think is expressed the difference between the philosophy of hon. Members opposite and ourselves. Ever since the Transport Act of 1947 hon. Members opposite have been obsessed with the necessity of getting the small man back into the road haulage business, no matter what had passed. No matter if the development of the industry was against the small man; no matter whether the natural play of economic forces was starting to drive the small man out of business and to form larger units—quite naturally through the play and flow of competition and as indeed it was doing—the Conservative Party clung to their shibboleth. They were determined at all costs to get the small man back into the business, irrespective of what developments had taken place, and irrespective, let it be marked, of the needs of the consumer.
Whatever may be the political mythology of the Conservative Party, the Chambers of Commerce, composed of pretty hard-headed business men who have to deal with these matters, were under no illusions about the small man


and the road haulage industry. The first representations they made to the Minister dealt precisely with the point which we now wish to write into the Lords Amendment. The British Chambers of Commerce, in their first communication which they published and sent to all hon. Members of this House, insisted that it should be a necessary part of any road haulage break-up that the existing services built up by the Road Haulage Executive should be maintained. Otherwise, they said, they feared the consequences to trade and industry in this country through the disruption which would follow from the break-up of these services. Their spokesman went on record in this connection.
Nevertheless, the Minister insisted on retaining in the Bill this mythology that the small man with his one or two lorries would provide the national service which has been built up and which, let it be noted, has not been attacked by any responsible body of road users ever since these debates started 12 months ago.
I know that hon. Members opposite have produced individual complaints from various people which they have flung in our faces and which, they said, showed how inefficient is this enterprise. But it is well known to hon. Gentlemen who have studied this matter that there are many responsible bodies of road users, traders who are organised in groups of one sort or another or in particular associations for the defence of their interests, who are very ready to express their views about the services of the Road Haulage Executive. I repeat that no responsible body of road users has ventured to express a criticism of the trunk services built up by the Road Haulage Executive.
The needs of the road users have been met and they have welcomed the trunk services built up by the Executive. It has been a phenomenon in the carriage of goods on the roads of this country that there should be a regular, time-table service, equivalent to the railway service, running every night and day, and users have described it as an addition to the efficient transport of their goods. In the words of the British Chambers of Commerce, they do not wish to see it destroyed.
Therefore, we in our Amendment take account of what has happened in the Road Haulage Executive and of the fact

that the users of road haulage services desire those services to go on. We take account of the fact that British Chambers of Commerce have asked that the services should not be broken up. We invite the Minister to include in the Amendment submitted to us that the Commission, in selling those units, shall have regard to maintaining and securing the continuance of these satisfactory road services.
There may be instances where a man will tender for such a few lorries, one, two or three, that he cannot possibly maintain single handed the service now maintained by the Executive. In this matter our concern is not with the pride of the Executive, but with the service which the customers expect. We say if the Commission are satisfied that the break-up of one of these existing road haulage depots will be into such small units that these satisfactory services cannot be maintained that should be a reason for refusing the sale of the units.
I admit we are here looking to the interests of the customers. That is, perhaps, a little foreign to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested only in the welfare of the road hauliers. Their concern is to ensure that the road hauliers can get back into the industry, irrespective of the consequences to the services given to the customers which may accompany their return. But I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister, in his attempts to distribute largesse among the road hauliers, to think occasionally of the customer.
I do not think it undesirable to ask the Minister that while he is handing these lorries back to his pals he might consider some way of keeping for the customers the services to which they have become accustomed, and wish to retain. So we put it to him that if he wishes, as apparently he does, to write into this Bill that his friends shall have the right to go back into the industry, even though they want to buy only a single lorry, he should have regard also to the customer and the trader.
Our Amendment provides that the Commission, in considering whether to sell these units, shall have regard to the financial position of those who are going to buy them. Here I must say that we start to tread some pretty unsavoury ground because there is little doubt that the Road Haulage Disposal Board,


whose nominal task it will be, when it is eventually set up, to see that the public interest is safeguarded, will prove to be little more than a hollow mockery. Its activities are already being forestalled by the city spivs, speculators and sharps who are anticipating what the Road Haulage Disposal Board ought to be doing by going round now to road haulage units trying to snoop and find out what information they can get about the size, quality and nature of the units in advance of any machinery which the Minister is to set up under this Bill.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should restrain these speculators who are doing this at the present time, and that he should endeavour to safeguard the public interest in this matter by ensuring that no one gets an unfair start in this matter of purchasing the lorries. Goodness knows the sale of them is bad enough and disgraceful enough, but if they are to be sold in a hole-and-corner way, through prominent supporters of the Conservative Party philosophy going round to Road Haulage Executive units and trying to get information in advance of everybody else, I say that it is a thoroughly disgraceful way of doing it.
The United Dominions Trust is a name that will not be unknown to hon. Members opposite. Mr. Gibson Jarvie, who is a prominent member of that Trust, has frequently expressed many views about nationalisation and his distaste for it; indeed he has an utter distaste for everything that is British so long as there is a Socialist Government in power, but he recovers his patriotism when the Conservatives get back. He not only recovers his patriotism but he also endeavours to get his dividends well covered. He has a vested interest in the return of the Conservative Party because the United Dominions Trust is one of the bodies to which I am referring.
I hope that the Minister is going to attend to this matter; I am making a serious allegation. It is one of the bodies which at the present time is trying to visit Road Haulage Executive depots to insinuate themselves into the goodwill of local managers, to find out what units are likely to be broken up and how they are to be sold in order that they can put in their bids in advance. What folly it is

to talk about the Disposal Board safeguarding the public interest in this matter.
In one part of the country there is a gentleman called Mr. Bristed—I have a photostat copy of his card here, and I take it it is correct—a director of the United Dominions Trust, who has bean visiting these depots not only to secure information in advance of this Bill but to proffer financial assistance to present employees of the Road Haulage Executive whom he can tempt into going into this business, irrespective of their financial standing. He is accompanied by a Mr. H. P. Kirkham who I see has an office in Leeds.
These gentlemen are paying visits to Road Haulage depots which are having a serious effect on staff morale. What is more they are taking advantage of the passing of this Bill to secure for themselves information and a standing and a status in advance of anybody else who is likely to go into this business. So seriously did the Road Haulage Executive regard this matter that the British Transport Commission issued a Press notice on the subject, in which they said:
the Road Haulage Executive … are tomorrow issuing a reminder to all their staff that any approaches seeking information about property which may be offered for sale as a result of the new Bill, or seeking financial or statistical data, must be referred to headquarters.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: It is the right hon. Gentleman's supporters who are doing this. It is no use the Minister saying, "Hear, hear." It is the very people that the Government are doing this for who are taking advantage of the Bill. What does the Minister expect them to do? What right has he to attempt to defend public probity in this matter, which concerns his supporters and the financiers of the Conservative Party coffers?
6.45 p.m.
To continue my quotation:
This has been found necessary because in many areas throughout the country financial representatives are now canvassing business in the knowledge that the banks, as stated by the Government in the House of Lords last week, have been told that they can lift the present ban on fresh credit facilities in favour of intending purchasers of road haulage units.
A spokesman for the Executive said tonight—this was some time ago:
It seems to us quite intolerable that employees who are in effect public servants


should be approached in this way without any regard for the elaborate procedure with all the necessary safeguards which Parliament is providing. Moreover it will tend to undermine morale which it is especially necessary at this moment to maintain.
I wish to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to accept this Amendment, and in doing so to show that he has some regard for public probity and the proper disposal of these units. What administrative action is he prepared to take with the United Dominions Trust, which is publicly known to be carrying out these activities, which is publicly known to be endavouring to seek an advantage for itself over competitors in this field, who will presumably have the same rights in acquiring the units as will the United Dominions Trust. I also ask whether the Minister is prepared to go to the Chairman of the United Dominions Trust and tell him to hold off until the Bill is through and not try to get the pickings in advance of the Bill being put through Parliament.
That seems to us not an unreasonable thing to do. If the Minister wants any other information as to approaches and attempts that are being made now, I invite him to look into the question of the carriage of fish from King's Cross goods station to Billingsgate fish market, and let him uncover the particularly nasty little operation going on there at the present time, and say what his view is of that when he has finished with it. I do not think I am being unjust when I say that the passage of this Bill is revealing all the most sordid facets of Conservatism and private enterprise. It is this sort of thing which we despise in hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters because they cannot even play the game fairly among themselves.
When we have a disposal of public property of this nature it is our view that the public should be protected, that the assets should be sold to people who are financially stable without bribes or offers of any sort being made to them by financial trusts whose job it is and whose business it is to ensure that as far as they possibly can they get the best interest for their shareholders, and who care little or nothing about the future welfare of the road haulage industry and little or nothing about how the public is to be served in the future
This is the different conception that exists between us and the party opposite. I am very glad indeed that we are never likely to be saddled with the responsibility for a nasty racket like this. I am very happy indeed to think that the Minister has an opportunity, in accepting this Amendment, to show whether his pleas that he wants to protect the public interest will be followed up by deeds as well. He has that opportunity, and by his attitude towards this Amendment we shall judge whether he is really in earnest and serious in wanting to get the best price for these assets and when he says that it is his job to get the best service for the consumer, or whether, as we suspect through his whole attitude to this Bill his real purpose is to get the maximum profit for his friends, irrespective of the public interest.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the request that he has made to the Minister that we should have a genuine answer to the charge, which is a very serious one, made by my hon. Friend. It is inevitable in the circumstances created by the Bill that this sort of thing will come about. Inevitably, we shall have those unsavoury conditions existing, and there will be flocking to the kill all sorts of undesirable characters. That this is to happen is quite clear. The information which my hon. Friend has brought to the notice of the House today makes it quite clear that already this state of affairs is developing, and, in fact, increasing and accelerating, as we proceed towards the date on which this Bill will become an Act of Parliament.
The Minister is here clearly charged by my hon. Friend and he will have to satisfy this House as to his own actions in this connection, as to the actions of the Executive for which he is responsible to the House, and the actions of the Transport Commission in connection with anything that can be done at this stage to prevent what is already going on and developing: in short, that he should do what it is his job to do, and that is to stop it at this stage and cut it off immediately.
What we are doing in this Amendment is to add to the multiplicity of instructions being given to the Commission in connection with the sale of its assets. What we


are seeking here, in addition to the things mentioned by my hon. Friend at the end of his speech, is to ensure that, added to those instructions being given to the Commission, is one which will clearly look after the road user, and that, in everything which the Commission does in selling these vehicles, consideration shall be given to the people who will use the vehicles and the undertakings of which the Commission will dispose.
It is quite clear that much of the success and much of the benefit obtained as a result of the work of the Road Haulage Executive came from the fact that it was engaged in large-scale operations, and the fact that it was engaged in operations on such a scale as would enable it, for example, to develop and extend the trunk and regular services, as against the tramp services provided by private operators. I think this is an extremely important part of the work of the Road Haulage Executive, and it is something which was well-known by every road user and which has been welcomed by various associations of road users, who are now afraid of the consequences of breaking up these large-scale operations in the Road Haulage Executive's business.
The Executive brought to the industry extended trunk and regular services, and provided a service which had not been previously provided by road haulage. It also commenced the worth-while task of providing a Teal service as against the old traffic-creaming process of picking out traffics here and there. This was part of the operations of the Road Haulage Executive which was welcomed by all users, because it did provide something which they could use.
In consequence of these operations, undoubtedly the Road Haulage Executive was able to improve the loading factor. It was in process of providing a service at a lower charge than would otherwise have been the case, because it was increasing its loading and ensuring that return loads in actual operations cut down the cost of transport to the user. These things have been started, and the Executive was in process of developing them, when the Minister came along with this Bill to cut off these operations at an early stage.
But the Road Haulage Executive did something else. It was as a result of

extending its operations that it was able to secure more economical working by the balancing of its fleet of vehicles in the various depots, and, by creating fairly large units, it was able to build up a balance of vehicles which would enable it to undertake in an economical way the task which it had to perform. This, added to the fact that they had created divisional pools of vehicles which helped to avoid an excess of vehicles in service and in the ownership of the Road Haulage Executive, undoubtedly had an effect upon industry and prevented a waste of capital and a waste of vehicles which we cannot really afford.
They were also able to make real use of and develop road haulage clearing house arrangements, by means of which loads would be obtained in the reverse as well as the forward direction, and it is here that the service became so important a part of the work of the Commission and also of the Road Haulage Executive that there are some interests in the country which are now seeking to continue and expand it. It would only be possible if we had a fairly large unit operating. It would not be possible under conditions of a number of small competing units unable to take advantage of those conditions.
It is undoubtedly the case that the Road Haulage Executive was creating a real and expanding network of both short and long distance services. The Road Haulage Executive created the sort of service of which the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:
The vital interests of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted; continuity of adequate services to industry and commerce is imperative.
They are the users of transport. They fear that, in the breakdown which is to take place, these services which have been built up by the Road Haulage Executive will disappear as a result of these sales. Most, if not all, of the things I have been talking about were made possible only because of the adequacy and size of the organisation provided by the Road Haulage Executive. It could not be done by small competing units inadequately staffed and equipped, but can only be done by a fairly large unit which was able to look at the traffics as a whole and at the country as a whole and take such


steps as appeared to them to be necessary to ensure that the services that were provided were what the country needed.
Now, all these services, or most of them, I fear, are doomed to destruction by the mad act of this Government, and what we have to do is to try to save as much as possible for the user of transport. We have to consider not only the user of transport, but the effect which transport has upon the economy of the country.
I dislike adding another instruction to the mass of those already contained in the Bill, and particularly in this Clause of the Bill, but I believe that in the interest of the road user and in the interest of saving some portion of this undertaking in order that we may have an efficient industry in this country, we must add this further instruction that the Commission must have regard to the factors which are clearly set out in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. We particularly want to ensure that we shall be able to secure the continuance of a satisfactory road service.
7.0 p.m.
We want the Commission to consider these factors when they come to sell this portion of their undertaking in order to ensure that we shall not break down the industry into such small units that it cannot satisfactorily meet the needs and requirements of the users of transport. We want the Commission clearly to understand that regard must be had to the users of transport and that they must be given absolute priority over the needs of the purchasers of the units.
Many hon. Members opposite, both on the Committee stage and on other stages of the Bill in this House, and in another place, have made it quite clear that what they have chiefly in mind is the selling back of this industry to those who were in it before and of breaking it down into the type of unit which they feel such people could purchase and manage. I am confident that this would be bad for the user of transport who ought to have priority over the friends of the Opposition who have done so much to persuade them to introduce this Bill and to get it through to this stage.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I join with my hon. Friends in asking the Minister to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for

Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House were shocked to hear of the activities of the United Dominions Trust in connection with the proposed sale of these vehicles. The least the Minister could do would be to make a statement tonight about the action he proposes to take to prevent this or any other trust from taking a mean advantage of the facilities which were, presumably, afforded to them.
I ask the Minister once again—I have said it on previous occasions—to consider this Amendment from the point of view both of the industry and of the workers in it. During an earlier stage of the Bill I stated—and I repeat it—that I believe that only the larger firm is capable not only of providing the essential services to industry, but of providing the conditions of employment for the workpeople that we are entitled to expect from the transport industry. The larger the unit in any industry, the greater its efficiency and the better the conditions of the workers in it.
The Minister ought to have some regard for the interest of those working in the industry. After all, the Bill is designed to make almost a present of a nationalised service to vested interests, and, as far as I can see, no attention is paid in this Measure to the interest and well-being of the workers in the industry. The Minister would at least be doing something towards preserving wage conditions, employment conditions and social conditions in the industry if he would agree to accept this Amendment and apply its terms so far as his directions are concerned.
The men in this industry are entitled to some consideration in this matter. We shall not get an efficient service by forming small units and allowing them to be operated by individuals. The success of the transport industry during the past few years has been due to the fact that the small units of ownership have been eliminated. I ask the Minister, first in the interest of the industry, and, secondly, in the interest of the workers engaged in it to accept this Amendment and to see that the units are sufficiently large in order to ensure that not only industry gets the right and proper service, but that those engaged in it get decent conditions and decent wages conforming to the principle of the fair wages clause.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to hark back to the opening arguments used by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in favour of this Amendment. He referred to the play of economic forces in the road haulage industry prior to nationalisation, and he argued that they were inexorably converting it into an industry of large organisations and big units. Why, therefore, he argued, should we attempt to revert in this Bill, and particularly through this Lords Amendment, to a form of industry which was already obsolete?
I am prepared to accept the test which the hon. Gentleman applies. He has appealed to Caesar and to Caesar we will go together and examine what structure of industry those economic forces had brought about when nationalisation began to take effect in 1948. It was an industry which comprised a few giant organisations and in which there was a small number of moderate-sized firms. But it was an industry in which the vast majority of firms were extremely small, operating only one, two or three lorries each.
These facts are familiar to the House, and I will only remind hon. Members that up to the end of 1951 the Commission had taken over nearly 3,800 undertakings to produce the 42,000 vehicles it then had. When one makes allowance for the few giant organisations which are included, it is evident that the average size of undertakings in the road haulage industry in 1947 was extremely small. We are, therefore, confronted with the fact that the play of economic forces in the road haulage industry has left it with the majority of its undertakings run by small firms. That fact is one of the reasons justifying the attempt to ensure by the Bill that when the industry is again in private hands it shall take preponderantly that shape.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be surprised at and to place weight upon the allegation that former customers of those small firms appear to be satisfied with the service which they get now from British Road Services. I can tell them why there is an appearance of satisfaction. In our debates on the Bill attention has been drawn over and over again to the staggering growth in C licences since nationalisation began. The great majority of those licences have been taken out to replace the services performed for in-

dustry by the small firms. The peculiar, personal and flexible service which those firms were able to give was no longer available to industry through the Transport Commission, so that industry reluctantly had to engage in the transport business itself to get this service.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If the statement the hon. Gentleman makes is correct, how does he account for the fact that the largest number and the greatest increase in C licences has taken place in regard to retail delivery and not in general haulage?

Mr. Powell: I am aware there has been a great increase throughout the period since the war in small retail vehicles, but there has also been a great increase in C licences for vehicles over 30 cwts. Numerically, the former may be in the majority; but if we contrast the number of vehicles before and after nationalisation we shall find a sharp and marked increase. Instead of utilising gladly the alternative service of this nationalised monopoly, industry has had reluctantly to resort to means of its own to replace the small firms which it had lost.
I will mention, in passing, the old argument which has been brought out once again about the condition of employees, often self-employed people, in the small firms, as compared with the employees of the Road Haulage Executive. I refer again to the fact that if the conditions in the Executive, with its 40,000 vehicles, were so superior to those in the great mass of the haulage industry with nearly one million vehicles, we should not be faced with the 25 per cent. turnover per annum of labour in the Executive but we should have queues of road haulage employees trying to get into the Executive—

Mr. Callaghan: There were.

Mr. Powell: —instead of employees of the Road Haulage Executive anxious to be taken over by private road hauliers, while employees of private hauliers still operating in the 25 mile radius were staying on hoping against hope that they would be able to operate on a broader basis. That argument has been destroyed time and time again in the debates on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, and here I agree with him. that this Lords Amendment and this


Opposition Amendment thereto exemplify the difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. One could hardly have a better illustration of the outlook of Socialism than the words of this Amendment. It is designed to ensure that these transport units do not pass into the ownership or control of persons
who by reason of their financial position, the smallness of the unit in question, or otherwise will be unable to secure the continuance of satisfactory road services.
7.15 p.m.
Socialism looks to bureaucracy, to monopoly, to the Government to secure the continuance of satisfactory service. We on this side of the House look to enterprise and competition to ensure the continuance of satisfactory service. It may well be that some of those who will come forward to take over these transport units—and I hope many of the units will be small ones—will prove, for one reason or another, unable, in the long run, to provide a fully satisfactory service, but their places will be taken by others immediately.
Anyone who, after 1955, can indicate that a fully satisfactory service is not being provided, can secure an A licence from the licensing authority. It is to the operation of competition, to the opportunity given by the Bill to those who can provide a satisfactory service to come in and do so, that we look above all for the continuance of satisfactory service. I accept, therefore, the suggestion that the two Amendments embalm, in a sense, the opposing outlooks of the two sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, said correctly that I was one of those who were anxious to see some guarantee that small units were available for disposal, as far as possible. I am glad to see that that wish on my part has been put into the terms of the Bill. My desire arises out of experience in my constituency. In the last 18 months, not once or twice but dozens of times, small hauliers and ex-hauliers in Wolverhampton have approached me because they were anxious to be assured that they would have an opportunity when the transport units were being disposed of, of acquiring small undertakings similar to those of which they were dispossessed and which they were able to operate. They knew that they have the experience,

the enthusiasm and the enterprise to provide with those units the service which Wolverhampton industry received from them in the days gone by.
It is from that personal background, as well as from the conviction that opportunity to compete is the best of all guarantees of service in the road haulage industry, that I support the Lords Amendment and ask the House to reject the Opposition Amendment thereto.

Mr. Proctor: I am very pleased to see the Attorney-General still in his place. We had the pleasure of asking the Minister of Transport to request him to come here to advise us on legal aspects of these Amendments. His presence is wanted now in another capacity. I believe that he did not have the privilege of hearing the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He should read very carefully in HANSARD what my hon. Friend said. It is his duty—

The Attorney-General: I did hear it.

Mr. Proctor: In that case it is all the better that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had it at first hand.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that he heard it, but is he prepared to deny its truth?

The Attorney-General: What I objected to was the allegation made against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that he was trying to make money for his friends. In my ordinary life I regard such things as disgraceful.

Mr. Proctor: I believe that the action of the Tory Party will certainly make money for their friends on the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill, as far as the Tory Party is concerned, seems to be to make money for their friends.
But I am looking at this matter from another aspect, from the point of view of workers who are at present engaged in the industry, and I call upon the Attorney-General not to treat this in any light manner, but to look at it very seriously and to consider the standards now observed in British public life. If, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East there are people going round the road transport depots snooping and attempting to find out information in one way or another, I want


a warning given to them that they should be careful to keep at least outside the Corrupt Practices Act.
We should remember that the employee of the Road Haulage Executive is under a very great strain at the present time. He does not know whether the person who is creeping about the depot, trying to find out something, may not be his employer next year and may be able to say then whether or not he is to be allowed to continue in the industry. That person may be able to say whether or not he may continue to live in his home or whether his child shall continue to receive its present education. I want this matter dealt with seriously by the Attorney-General. I want him to issue a warning that no pressure should be put on the employees of the Road Haulage Executive to be disloyal to their present employers and to give information which they properly would not be able to give.
It has been suggested that the natural play of economic forces will continue to keep the small man in the industry. All the evidence of the modern trend shows that it is the large units that are most efficient in modern industrial civilisation. We concede that when large units were being brought into being in British industry hardship was imposed in many cases upon the owners and workers in the small units. But the Government now propose to reverse the process in a most unnatural manner and to bring into being the small units. That seems to offer no advantage whatsoever to the community or to the workers.
While the interest of the transport users has been very ably put forward from this side of the House, and the general interest of the nation is something about which we on this side are always thinking. I wish I could say the same of the other side of the House, but in this transport business hon. and right hon. Members opposite are putting their private interest first and the interest of the nation last. A great part of the general body of the nation voted for the Government that brought in this Bill and they have great responsibility for it.
The workers employed in the industry have no responsibility for it and are in a very helpless condition. They do not know whether or not their jobs will be preserved. Lord help them if they fall into the hands of some of the small

transport units which existed before nationalisation, and especially if they fall victims of the exploitation that took place between the two wars when many of the transport firms were being built up.
Let hon. Members just imagine the situation when a man gets hold of a couple of lorries and he finds that he has not the necessary resources to keep them on the road. His first tendency is bound to be to exploit more fiercely those whom he employs. If the Tory Party are determined, as they appear to be, to go on with this business and to denationalise road transport let them at least do it in such a way as to ensure decent conditions for the workers who are in the industry. I say that there can be no place for the small unit after the big units have been built up, and I hope that the Minister will give most careful consideration to the points that I have made about these workers.
One of these people came to see me two week-ends ago. He explained that he was employed by a fairly large road transport concern that had been taken over by British Road Services. Even before the British Road Services took him over he felt fairly secure in his position with that fairly large firm. He asked me what was the present position and said that, as far as he could see, the tendency of the British Government would be to break up depots such as the one in which he was employed and to sell them in small units.
He said that he had worked very hard ever since British Road Services had taken over the firm, but now he did not know whether his position would be secure and what would happen to him. He had bought his own house in the area and his children were attending a secondary school there. If this House insists upon carrying out these marauding activities and on selling up these depots which were so successfully established by the British Road Services, this man may suffer very considerably. It may be that if his depot became part of a big unit his position would be secure. I ask the Government to give careful consideration to this point, which is a big one for workers in the industry. I ask them to ensure that the new transport firms which are to be set up should be of sufficient size to give men the necessary security and the possibility of decent employment.
It seems to me that the Tory Party are flying in the face of every common sense tendency in modern industrial civilisation. Years ago, when we first struck this problem in the railway world, it seemed to me that the unification of road and rail transport was essential. In the years 1923–26, when we were first considering this problem, we had a very big debate in the National Union of Railwaymen as to what we should do. A section of railwaymen thought that we should go all-out for nationalisation and attempt to unify the road and rail services of the country on the basis of public ownership. The view that I took in the political climate that existed after 1925 was that there was very little possibility of our winning a majority in the nation so as to secure the transport unification which I considered to be absolutely essential.
Inside the National Union of Railway-men I propagated my idea that we should try to secure road powers for the railways and the unification of the transport system on the basis of common ownership of road and rail. We had a considerable debate inside the union and we decided to support the railway companies in their demand for the right to use the roads. In those old days when the railway companies were really the main transport units of this country—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is unwittingly straying a little from the Amendment which is before the House. The history which he is reciting is certainly interesting, but I do not think that it bears upon this point.

Mr. Proctor: With respect, Sir, I tried to relate what I was saying to what I considered to be the issue before us, namely, the size of the transport units which are to be employed. I submit that that is germane to our discussion. I wanted to point out what the Tory Party did in the old days to retard the proper development of transport and to say that exactly the same thing is being done now to prevent the natural development and cohesion of these various forms of transport. In view of your opinion, Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible in putting forward that point.
7.30 p.m.
The one thing which prevented the railway companies from using the roads

in those days was the law. They were prevented, not by red tape but by blue tape from the other side, from having the opportunity to run road transport. If they wanted to move anything from one place to another they could not send it by road. It has to go partly by road and partly by rail. Today, this Bill is doing exactly the same kind of thing. We are taking all these unnecessary measures to prevent the Transport Commission, who own the railways, from dealing with the road transport side of the industry.
Later, we shall be dealing with the companies which are to be promoted. I ask the Minister of Transport to give consideration to the absolute necessity of having a large unit to preserve the conditions of the workers as well as to serve the interests of the public.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must say that I prefer the tone and temper of the observations of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) to the rather rough and, I think, wholly undeserved language used by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I had intended to enlarge somewhat on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but as he is not here at the moment I have no doubt that he will repeat them, though I hope in not quite such offensive language, and then I will deal with them more clearly and closely when he is here.
May I straight away make one thing plain? The suggestion that there is any underhand conspiracy between Her Majesty's Government and the United Dominions Trust can, I think, be treated with the contempt that it deserves. It ought not to be necessary for me to say that no special privileges of any kind have been given to the United Dominions Trust. It is clearly impossible to make quite certain in a great change of this kind that no contacts, which perhaps should not take place in quite the form they do, should be legalised.
I do not doubt that when nationalisation was in the air and a large number of people were being persuaded by voluntary means, with inverted commas round the word voluntary, to part with their lifetime possessions and occupation in road haulage, all sorts of private contacts and hole-in-corner methods may well have been engaged in. I entirely agree with the statement issued by the British


Transport Commission that if there are approaches made to their staff by any outside body, whether it is a credit house or any other outside body, it must be for them to see that proper protection is given to their rank and file. The statement issued by the Commission was couched in language to which no one can take exception.
As to the provision of bank credit, there have already been two or three exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I think that the OFFICIAL REPORT of last week can speak for itself in that connection. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East made a large number of observations—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that matter—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will come back to it as soon as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East returns. I do not doubt that in the course of the lengthy debates which we are likely to have he will return again to the charge about the Trust. It is important to get it on the record now that there is not a word of truth in the suggestion which I think is most unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Other matters have been mentioned in this debate which is reminiscent of the discussions we had some months ago. The myth, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East called it, of the small man has been fairly shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to be no myth at all. There is indeed a conflict of ideologies and of loyalties here. We are anxious to see the entry of small people into road haulage and the re-entry of small people who ought never to have been driven out. The more there are the better.
I cannot make out what is happening. At one and the same moment we are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the United Dominions Trust is using improper machinery to get people in who are going to bankrupt the organisation—and that seems a curious thing for a finance house to do—and at the same time the Trust will make a large fortune out of it. I

think all these things will come out when the story of this act of social regeneration is fully completed.
Now that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has returned, I must say that I felt obliged to deal with some of the remarks he made and to condemn in the strongest possible terms some of his innuendoes against the Trust. I take it that there will be opportunities to return to that charge. If there are not, I will certainly deal with it now.

Mr. Callaghan: They were not innuendoes: they were definite charges.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That makes the position a good deal more precise. One ought to be very chary of using the privilege of this House to make statements, which really cannot stand examination anyhow, in the extravagant way in which some of them were advanced.
The Amendment of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seeks to put various requirements as conditions without which no transfer may take place by the Disposal Board. There is to be the requirement of financial stability and a number of other considerations. I have found a certain amount of amusement in watching throughout the last few weeks, and especially during the last few days, the various attempts of the Opposition to make up their minds how to alter the Bill to secure their avowed aim that road haulage should be organised almost entirely in large units and that there should be no opportunity whatever for the small man.
I must say that I found it rather difficult to reconcile this total disregard of the interests of the small man, often the ex-Service man, with the oft professed claims of hon. Gentlemen opposite to be the party of the forgotten men. On the Order Paper on 31st March and on 1st April there were six attempts to put in certain considerations to which the Disposal Board had to pay regard. Then we had the Order Paper of 15th April. Four of these attempts went and only two remained, but another one was added. On the Order Paper of 16th April there was added another one.
Now we are dealing with one of those considerations. We have said, and we repeat, that in our view there ought to be a large number of small people in an industry which has throughout the years


given an opportunity of owning one's own business to the individual and giving good service to the community by close and sympathetic contact with the customer. I was most interested to see that Mr. Marsden, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite will know and who is a most distinguished expert on transport, in an address during the Easter vacation to the Institute of Transport identified himself with this view. He said that the small haulier who identified himself with one or two customers and studied their detailed needs, whose staff understood how to handle and safeguard lightly packed or specially vulnerable goods from door to door, held a very important place. This is a class of person about whom, in his own interest and in the interests of the consumer, we are most concerned.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as if we have no interest in the consumers. A large proportion of them appear to prefer us to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I see little indication of any change in public opinion—

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that remark? At the last General Election we got 250.000 more votes than his party.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am judging solely by the only method of testing public opinion—the formation of the House of Commons at the moment. [Laughter.] If hon. Members deny that this House is a fair representation of public opinion now, what right have they got to claim that over the six unhappy years of their Administration, Parliament mirrored the views of the people?
It was a matter of some interest to me—although I would be out of order if I developed this overmuch—that when we were discussing the criterion to which the licensing authority should have to pay regard, when we emphasised the importance of the consumer, we were frequently told by hon. Members opposite that it was the interests of the people already providing transport that ought to be preferred. We are in favour of the interests of consumers, and we believe that the restoration of close and sympathetic contact between small people and their customers is one of the ways to help us in our present economic difficulties.
It does not appear to us to be in the least necessary—indeed, it seems wholly undesirable—to fit into the Bill a form of words similar to those that have been moved by hon. Members opposite. In our view, the new form of words which replace the form that describe the situation "in too few hands" is preferable to the wording that we had first intended to incorporate in the Bill. I should like to thank my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) for his help in this matter, and to assure him that though there is a change in the Lords Amendment it is designed to express in more precise language the thoughts that he had in mind.
We were very much impressed by the arguments that were used in another place that the phrase "too few hands" was rather vague and that a refusal of a tender on these grounds was a political matter for a Minister and not for the Commission or the Disposal Board. We have therefore introduced a form of words which drew from Lord Jowitt commendation, and though I would not be in order in quoting the former Socialist Lord Chancellor as he is not a Minister and it is still the same Session, I will direct the attention of Members to column 319 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Third Reading of this Bill in another place on 26th March.
The new wording that I shall, I hope, shortly commend as one of their Lordships' Amendments defines more clearly the circumstances in which it is intended that a tender might be refused, and it also provides that it should not be refused wholly or mainly on such grounds without the Minister's consent. I think this puts fairly, squarely and quite properly on the Minister the final decision for what is largely a political decision.
I hope that the result of this will be that though there will undoubtedly be a number of companies formed for disposal as well as companies retained by the Commission, a large number of small people will come into this business, and I can assure them that the country as a whole will welcome it. We shall hope to provide, conditions of security and fairness which will make their restored occupation profitable alike to them and to their fellow countrymen. I therefore regret very much that I cannot do as I


did on the Amendment before and recommend the House to accept the Amendment. I hope that the Amendment can be disposed of in good time.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I rise now because I thought it might be convenient not for the purpose of ending the debate but because this is an important Amendment which has come from their Lordships' House and it is an important Amendment that we are moving to it. Therefore, it is perfectly proper and legitimate that the debate should go on.
It seems to me that the Government are trying to run two horses at the same time. The only difference, between the Front Bench and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was that he was running a horse at a somewhat galloping speed and the Minister was a little more cautious in his observations on the doctrine. Obviously, the doctrine upon which the Government started in considering this Bill is to be found in the wording of the Bill, and changes in the wording indicate that there is a change in the philosophy.
The philosophy was that the Road Haulage Executive's undertaking should be broken up into units as small as possible—the smaller the better, that the competitive principle should be vigorous and that a better public service will be provided by a highly competitive road haulage industry than by the organisation of the undertaking into larger units. I feel sure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will agree that that is a fair statement of his argument, and in principle the Minister advanced the same argument but not with the same degree of force. Indeed, it will be remembered that from the White Paper onwards that has been the Government's argument throughout.
But what is, in fact, happening? The Government are to some extent steadily running away from the principles on which they started. I warn hon. Members opposite that they are being sold down the river by the Minister of Transport. He is betraying their principles. He is going away from what they are arguing. He is already miles away from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is in a sort of competitive degree of reactionary faith. As between him and

the Minister I do not know who is the most reactionary, but certainly the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does his best in that direction.
If one takes the Bill as it left this place to go to the House of Lords, it will be seen that it provided, in subsection (6):
In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
It does read, I agree, a little like an authorised document from the Conservative Central Office with a foreword by the Prime Minister. The Economic Secretary looks shocked. Of course, he was trained in that stable, and no doubt he will be able to incorporate in the Finance Bill some similar wording which could be used in the political propaganda of the Conservative Central Office. It is more of that nature than it is of the nature of the text of an Act of Parliament because it is difficult to know what it means in application. I think the danger of the wording is that the courts might take it too literally and not realise that it was one of these political side-stepping declarations.
The Amendment which the Government, or one of their friends presumably, promoted in another place moves away from the provision of the Bill in an important and substantial direction. It says that the Clause should read, after "avoiding":
any steps which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister
What does that mean? It deliberately provides that the Minister can, by his own unilateral decision, completely set aside the philosophy of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
I do not wonder that the hon. Member is now leaving the Chamber. He could see what was coming. He now knows that he has been sold down the river, that his anarchistic principles have been betrayed by his own Front Bench and that the Minister in any case can completely set


aside the whole argument that the Conservative Party put forward, the whole of their manifestoes, and the whole of the principles of their undertaking to the little man in road haulage.
The Government Front Bench have attacked an hon. Friend of mine for what he said about the difficulties of the small men in this business of providing proper labour conditions, a co-ordinated service, and so on. They attack us and even drag in the ex-Service men in an attempt at a rather cheap argument. If any persons have shown themselves to be the friends of the ex-Service men it is this party. [Laughter.] Certainly. At the end of Second World War we did not leave them to go to the Mayors' Distress Fund, as did the Tory Party after the First World War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Everybody is trying to provoke me, but to be out of order is the last thing in the world I wish to do.
One of my hon. Friends was condemned for arguing the case for considering a somewhat larger service, which he thought would be a better service. It was said by hon. Members opposite that he was trying to push out the little man, and that he was an enemy of that little man. My prophecy is not that the Conservative Government will protect the little man, but that, in the end, they will do pretty well what we are arguing that they should do. But they will do it for another reason—because they are the natural friends of big business, of trusts, combines and monopolies.
A noble Lord who is a member of the party opposite is a member of one of these trusts. I sent a message to him in the hope that he would be here. I say that the party opposite are the natural friends of big business. Let hon. Members opposite be under no illusions; if any of them does not want to see big concerns operating—and there may be a certain number who do not—this Lords Amendment gives power to the Minister to destroy the little man or to prevent him from emerging, because it gives complete mandatory freedom to set aside the interests of the small man without any question of making an Order or putting down a Prayer.
I want to refer to one or two remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He argued that it was the wish of the Government

and the party opposite to preserve the small man, and that competition was the great thing. Before 1921 there was a lot of competition between 100 railway com-panies. It was a Coalition Government, in which the Conservatives were powerful, which merged them into four companies. Was that in the name of competition and the preservation of the small man, or was it in the name of amalgamation? Who were the men who advocated the square deal—men coming together in road and rail ownership? They were largely Conservatives.
I now want to refer to the matter of the United Dominions Trust. I did my very best to see that my message reached the noble Lord the Member for Pentlands (Lord John Hope). My information is—and I should like to know whether or not it is true—that representatives of this undertaking have been going round some of the road transport units of the Road Haulage Executive, seeking to get information and to make contacts whereby their financial assistance and advances could be made available to smallish transport people. I am told that they sought information that would enable them to make intelligible propositions in this respect.
This is a Parliamentary Bill; it is not an Act of Parliament. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was perfectly entitled to say that this kind of thing is irregular, thoroughly objectionable and should be condemned. The right hon. Gentleman said that it might have been a little over the line; that it might be wrong or—the implication was—that it might not. I think it was the duty of the Minister to say flatly that this was wrong and that it should stop.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter of very considerable importance. I am concerned about the integrity with which these affairs are conducted. Obviously, there is nothing improper in a finance house or a banking house approaching individuals whom they think may be anxious to get credit facilities if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I do not see anything wrong in that. To go to offices of an organisation which is not yet dissolved raises quite different considerations, and I think it is quite right that the Transport Commission should look after the interests of their own staff.
The fact is that they did not prohibit such contacts, but said that any approaches should be referred to headquarters, and I consider that that was the right approach. They could then protect their people when they needed protection, without preventing the ordinary contacts which are perfectly correct.

Mr. Morrison: That reply justifies my description of the Minister's lukewarm attitude. He is still saying that it is not wrong. He argues that for the United Dominions Trust to approach a potential operator or an existing private firm is perfectly legitimate. I am not so sure, when the Bill is still before Parliament. But I am quite clear that it is patently wrong that they should approach officers and staff of the Road Haulage Executive with a view to getting something which I can only describe as backstairs information which they regard as useful to them.
It is quite clear that the Road Haulage Executive, having told their people to refer them to some higher office, have done so with a view to that office saying, "Get off the course." The Minister should have said flatly that they should not have approached those officers who are, in a sense, public officers, because they are officers of a public corporation. Do not make any mistake about it; what makes us suspicious, and what led my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East to make some emphatic observations, is the fact that ever since the Labour Government brought in their Road Transport Act, in 1947, there has been a closer and closer tie-up between the Conservative Party, road haulage operators and, therefore, the Government, because they are interested in it.
The Conservative Central Office are interested in it. We have no idea what amount the road haulage operators have contributed to the funds of the party opposite, but one of the members of the United Dominions Trust is a considerable politician. The Chairman of the Trust Board is Mr. J. Gibson Jarvie, who is very forthright in some of his observations. Other directors are Mr. D. Carmichael; Mr. Peter MacLeod Gray; the noble Lord the Member for Pent-lands; Mr. J. R. T. Gibson Jarvie—presumably a relation of the Chairman—

Mr. W. J. Johnson; Sir Brian Mountain; Sir Robert B. Pearson, and Mr. A. C. Uren.
8.0 p.m.
It will be seen that a noble Lord who is a Member of this House is one of the directors. I make no charge against him; he may know nothing about this matter; but it would be better if he could make a report to the House and express his opinion about it. We do not like the situation in which credit facilities have been loosened in order to favour undertakings of this sort, as has been admitted in principle both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Economic Secretary. We think that our Amendment, which argues for the public service, a co-ordinated public service, being at any rate among the very big considerations which should be kept in mind in the handling of these sales, is right. It stands on a firm principle of public interest and the public service. We think it must be right.
We believe that the Government ought to accept it rather than this somewhat ramshackle wording into which the Government have now drifted, and we therefore ask the House, after the debate has been concluded, to support our Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps I may say a few words about the Lords Amendment and the Opposition Amendment. Both are under discussion. I wish to question whether the moral grounds of the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) are as satisfactory to him as they ought to be. He castigated us for favouring big business and went on to make suggestions with which I will try to deal in a moment or two, but he seemed to be on very doubtful grounds.
This Amendment of the Labour Party is clearly designed to favour big business to the utmost possible extent because it tries to remove from the list of those who will receive these units people who,
by reason of their financial position, the small-ness of the unit in question, or otherwise, will be unable to secure the continuance of satisfactory road services.
I cannot make out what the "otherwise" means. I suppose it means one man businesses in a small way of life, a man living in a small house with an open yard in which he keeps one lorry, a man with a


wife and two children on £6 a week; I suppose that is "otherwise" in this Amendment of the Socialist Party. What else could it mean? They say, "by reason of their financial position." For political reasons they dare not say "a small and mean financial position," but that is what they mean. They go on to talk about the smallness of the unit. The Amendment pours scorn on the small people. There were some remarks by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, about the periods after the two wars and ex-Service men, but these arguments carried no conviction at all.
Whatever they may say on other Amendments or in other fields, in this Amendment the Labour Party clearly put themselves on the side of big road units, of organisations with powerful administrative businessmen, large machines of accounting and fleets of lorries. They put themselves solidly against the small units which we on this side of the House favour, as shown in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: May I put one point to the noble Lord which is important? Does he still support the licensing system which controls the number of vehicles to be given for the various routes on which they are travelling, or does he not?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The licensing system is being modified, as has been foreshadowed already in the Bill, but that is out of order on this Amendment.
The Minister is quite right, in dealing with the Amendment which we are accepting from another place, when he says that he is to be the final arbiter on whether units are to be sold when they tend to be large. It may be that for economic reasons it is a very good plan to have one or two large units, but in general the philosophy behind the Bill and this Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, is in favour of denationalisation to small units; and we are proud to have a Conservative Minister who will take the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in seeing that, in general and as far as possible, the units into which the transport is formed shall be on the small side and only in exceptional cases will they be on the large side.
I want to say a few words about what the right hon. Member for Lewisham,

South said about the United Dominions Trust. I have no connection with it. I know nothing about its activities. The only person I know among those the right hon. Gentleman listed as directors of the concern is my noble Friend the Member for Pentlands (Lord John Hope). I think the right hon. Gentleman might not only have done justice but have arranged that it should be seen that justice was done. He ought to have secured that my hon. Friend was actually in his place when the allegations were made. These Lords Amendments will occupy the House for at least two days and there will be other opportunities later in the passage of the Amendments, as the Minister said, when my noble Friend could have been in his place to answer directly and immediately the very carefully phrased allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman.
What if there have been some contacts? What is wrong in that? When any great organisation is being broken up or is coming to an end, when the managing director or chairman of any business is obliged to announce that he is ceasing activities—or, indeed, long before he announces it—many of the persons engaged in those activities are doubtful about their future; and, human nature being what it is, they will make enquiries about their future and make such contacts as they can.
We have the cover from the Transport Commission for what has been done. There is nothing immoral about it. The Transport Commission say they are agreeable to the arrangements which have been made. What is there wrong in making contacts through or with an organisation which to some extent—though I myself hope to a limited extent, and I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees with me—will be an instrument in effecting the denationalisation of these units? What is wrong if representatives of that organisation make contacts where they can with those who will be affected by denationalisation?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Knowing his integrity and standing, I am sure the noble Lord would agree that this is a special case where men of great influence, holding national positions, should not have got themselves into a position of this kind.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know, and therefore cannot agree that they have got themselves into a position of this kind. We ought to have the details of the charges. What persons have been to what place at what times and what have they done? Until we know that, the House is not justified in drawing any conclusions. The allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman, though studied and carefully phrased, were, in fact, vague; they did not amount to anything very specific, and until we get specific charges and know what has been done, it is quite impossible for the House to decide.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ellis Smith rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I shall not give way again. Let the Labour Party be very careful about casting those wide allegations before the public. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I remember very well—and I shall be studied and careful in my phraseology, too—in the early days of the last Parliament, when nationalisation was proceeding, when collectivist themes were being discussed and people were being drawn in from all parts of the country in order to serve the needs of the Socialist State, that certain things happened. The Board of Trade and certain gentlemen connected with the Board of Trade were not too careful in some of their relations. There were a few investigations before the Select Committee of Privileges. Let us have no more of this. Let us have the detailed charges against the specific persons and no vague allegations made for political advantage.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think investigations by the Committee of Privileges into actions by people connected with Governments in the past started during the Labour Government, but it would be an unsavoury thing to accept the invitation of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) to trace through some rather sordid passages of political history.
The speech of the Minister of Transport was pretty disappointing. He did not accept our Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but I think the most disappointing feature of his speech was his reaction to the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). We saw the right hon. Gentleman's seemingly righteous

wrath added to the hysterical indignation of the Attorney-General, but neither the Minister nor the Attorney-General denied that these things were happening.
The Minister did not seem to be at all concerned about whether they were happening. If he can recollect the debates on Second Reading and at the Committee stage of the Bill he will remember what we were told would happen during this sabotaging and destruction of British Road Services. This sordid snooping of those financial racketeers is the justification of the fears we expressed at that time, and I sincerely hope the Minister will take action and let this House know the result of what inquiry he makes and what action he proposes to take. He said that this Measure was an act of social regeneration. How on earth can he possibly condone even by silence the actions of this Trust if he really believes that this is an act of social regeneration?
His speech demonstrated either that he could not read or that he was reading the wrong Amendment. He said that we on this side of the House totally disregarded the small man. I wish he would read our Amendment. There is nothing in our Amendment that totally disregards the small man. There is nothing in the Lords Amendment, which we are seeking not to change but to add to, about the small man or special privileges for the small man. We should not start consideration of this issue by the size of a unit, whether it is a small business, whether it is a big business, or whether it is a monopoly. The proper criterion surely as to whether or not we are doing the right thing is the effect it is going to have on the transport of the country.
From the very outset of the 1947 Act we have had chorus after chorus from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and three more speeches from that side again tonight, all glorifying, almost deifying, the small businessman. He could not do any wrong. The attention of the House and of the country has been pointed to the dangers of monopoly. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) sits forward with interest. No one has expatiated more on this subject than he has, unless it is the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South himself. The dangers of monopoly are referred to, and there is a suggestion about what consideration should be given to them by the Commission.
What we are doing is to ask the Commission to consider the dangers of the fragmentation of the industry, which are very real. It is no good talking about the road haulage industry's having always been an industry of small men and small businesses, and relating it to 1946. The Minister knows quite well that development of the road haulage industry was more or less frozen by the events from 1939 to 1945. It came under direction and zoning. He must remember that before the war finished the noble Lord who is the overlord of all this suggested that something should be done for the improvement of transport after the war, and pointed to the fact that one of the greatest obstacles was the multiplicity of small firms, which was a barrier to co-ordination. The fact still remains.
8.15 p.m.
If the Minister is going to carry into actuality the kind of speech he made tonight there will be practically no big firms at all. If there were to be, there would be no new Clause "A." I shall be very interested in the reactions of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South when we discuss that. If he really means what he said he will vote against it. The creation of these small firms will not necessarily make for efficiency in transport. It is from efficiency in transport that we must start. The noble Lord surely cannot object to this, that the first consideration is whether or not the people who get the businesses will be able to secure the continuance of satisfactory road services. As far as we are concerned a man can buy one lorry or two lorries or three so long as he is able satisfactorily to continue efficient road services. That is all we on this side of the House want.
I do not know why the Minister refuses our Amendment. Why should he object to our saying that the financial position of the purchasers should be taken into consideration to see whether they will be able to provide the services required? After all, I think it was the Vice-President of the National Chamber of Trade who said not so long ago:
Experience has shown that there are services which can best be given by a larger, coordinated road haulage unit.
It is because that is so that we are trying to get away from the idea of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the only danger is monopoly. They have so plugged that idea as to be forgetful

of other dangers. A justification of our fears is the speech we heard from the Minister. There is the gravest danger that we shall get inefficient long distance road haulage services because of the breakup of the present organisation into very small and inefficient units.
So I ask the Minister to think again about our Amendment to the Lords Amendment. Let him read it this time, and let him read it in a reasonable and cool frame of mind. We know the doctrine of the more the merrier, and that the more there are the greater the competition will be, and that the greater the competition the greater will be the benefits to be derived. It just does not work in the industrial world. Are we to go again through all the pains and pangs of bankruptcy and amalgamation to achieve an efficient road haulage service?
The Minister must not forget—I am sure he already knows it—that British industry is more or less satisfied with the service it is getting from British Road Services today. The Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland could tell him the reactions of businessmen in Scotland to this Bill. They certainly do not want hundreds of small businesses trying to do the job that can properly be done by larger firms. I ask the Minister to abandon this blinding prejudice of Tory dogma and fancied ideas about what we mean. Let him read our Amendment and see exactly what we mean. Nothing could be more reasonable, and nothing could be better for efficiency in road transport.

Mr. J. Grimond: I rise only because of a remark made by the Minister. I understood that one of the strongest arguments of the Government for this Bill—certainly it was an argument that appealed to me—was that it would take politics out of transport and allow transport to be organised on economic grounds; that in future there would be room in the transport system for different forms of transport, and within road transport room for big units and small units; that some services could be provided by big units and some by the small men—who I am very glad to see are to be given an opportunity of re-entering the industry; that the consumer would have the choice, to some extent, of sending his goods by a big unit or a small unit, by rail or road


as he liked, and that his choice would be determined on economic grounds; and that competition should, within reasonable safeguards, run within the industry.
If I understood the Minister aright—if I misunderstood him I am sure he will correct me—I thought he said that one of the features of this Lords Amendment which appealed to him was that it would allow the decision whether a tender should be refused
wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of … competition
to be decided on political grounds.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry if I gave that impression. If hon. Members read the debate in another place they will find that all Labour Peers who took part in that debate stressed the view that it was not fair to put upon the Disposal Board or the Commission the final say whether a tender should be refused on the ground that if it were granted it would tend to concentrate the disposal into too few hands. They said it was a matter for the Minister to settle—although not in any party political sense—and I felt there was something in their case and we accepted that. I entirely agree that the final set-up of transport should conform to what the consumer wants, and what we are anxious to secure is that there shall be a substantial number of small people in this business who will restore again the close association that used to exist.

Mr. Grimond: I am not asking whether this decision is to be taken by the Commission or the Minister. What I am anxious to clear up and to have put aside is a remark, which I think the Minister did make, that whoever made the decision it was a political decision. In my view that is a very important point. It should not be a political decision; the decision should be made on economic grounds, looking to the general interests of consumers and of the country; looking to the interests of the workers in the industry, if you like, but made on economic grounds.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It should be made by the political head of the Department and not by the Commission or the Disposal Board, but, naturally, the political

head would have all those considerations in mind in coming to his decision. After listening to the debate in another place it did not seem to us fair to leave the burden solely in the hands of the Disposal Board or the Commission.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister. I think it is something, anyway, to have got that admission, that whoever makes the decision it will not be made on purely political grounds. It is noticeable in the Lords Amendment that apparently the situation is envisaged in which the Minister shall say that the Commission is not to refuse a tender wholly on the grounds that it is likely to lead to undue restrictions; that is to say, the Minister will be in a position of intervening, I should-have thought, on the side of restriction. That is a small point, but it is a point.
The experience of this country during at any rate the last 20 years has been that if there is an opportunity for a decision to be made by a Minister it has not led to greater competition and the benefit of the small men, but has led invariably to greater monopoly and the success of the big men—a situation looked on with great sympathy by the Civil Service, the advisers of the Minister, and very often the Minister himself.
I must end by stressing that if the Minister makes the decision himself I hope he will do it on economic grounds. On the very principles of his own Bill I ask him whether it is wise to vest this power in a political head instead of in a commission or some other body which is clear of politics. I regret that any suggestion of politics should come into it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the earlier debates he will recall that the Commission and the Disposal Board want some protection if they refuse a tender which is the best tender. Obviously, they have a statutory duty to get the best possible price, and if they turn down a really good tender on the ground that it would tend to concentrate the assets in too few hands they ought to have the protection of the Minister before they come to that decision.

Mr. Grimond: I think I have got something from the Minister. I hope that we have at least got it on the record that the Minister will make the decision on


economic grounds in the public interest, and that he will regard this Lords Amendment, if accepted, as strengthening the hand of the Commission in cases where they reject a tender on the ground that it will produce a monopoly, and not as a means of over-riding the Commission who have been moved by economic factors.

Mr. Popplewell: It has been very interesting tonight to hear all this talk about safeguarding the interests of the small men, and to hear the lipservice paid by way of propaganda by the. party opposite. The Minister says that he is anxious to see the industry cluttered with small men. I wonder how sincere that really is. In the immediate disposal of the transport units he is trying to ensure that a number of small men will return to the industry. Does he expect that set-up to continue? Is it not really just lip service to win support for this proposal?
The Minister may disagree, but I know a little about the Minister; I know that he has sufficient intelligence not to overlook the history of the transport industry and its growth, such as took place in the inter-war years. We know that when vesting day came there were a large number of small men in the industry. We know that in pre-war days, as a consequence of that position, the House occupied itself on numerous occasions with various Acts of Parliament to try to safeguard the safety of the road by legislating that loads should be safe. We passed legislation to safeguard the hours of the men employed on the roads. We also know that some of the biggest supporters of the Minister and of the Tory Party are behind this Bill. Just how far they are financially supporting them, we cannot get to know. Perhaps we would know if the Tory Party would publish their balance sheet.
8.30 p.m.
We know that the Road Haulage Association are fairly big contributors to the Tory Party. What do the road hauliers say about this? In 1946, they gave an indication to the Labour Minister of Transport of their view and they accepted the obligation of a public service. Is it possible to get a public service with a number of small units in the industry? We all know that it is absolutely impossible. The Road Haulage

Association also said that they would recognise the obligation to accept without discrimination any traffic which they were asked to carry and which was within their capacity.
Does that tie up with a number of small units within the industry? Of course not. We know that it is impossible for a small unit to accept these obligations. We know that the small units cannot, as the Road Haulage Association said they would do, conform to approved standards, conditions, and a national rent structure correlated as between different forms of transport. We have experienced this in times gone by. So one can go on with all the varying six Clauses put forward by the Association.
No, this talk about small units is purely an effort to try to get support for the disposal of the nationalised transport system. We know that it cannot operate for long. The growth of transport is all against that. Is it possible for a number of small units to give a co-ordinated service over the length and breadth of this country such as we now have? Bless my heart and soul, there has been established by the Tory Party and their supporters the Traffic Licensing Commissioners. With what object? To keep out the small unit man.
Let us face up to it. We know that, whenever a small man makes an application for a haulage service, the big owners of transport bring all the legal people possible to oppose it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Jobs for the boys."] We remember the square deal proposals for the railways. Only on 17th of this month we saw an incident involving the small man. There was a suggestion to close down the Weardale branch railway. The suggestion put to the Traffic Commissioners was that they should grant a through service for this area. There were four small men involved and two of them objected to each other. It is perfectly ridiculous and it indicates that what takes place in road haulage occurs in the road passenger service.
Lip service has been paid to the needs of the ex-Service man. That sounds hollow coming from hon. Members opposite. Most of us remember well how the ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war sank their gratuities in lorries. What happened? They worked hard trying to


scrape a living. The majority of those small units had to dispose of their lorries or found themselves in the Bankruptcy Court. That is the history of transport.
Is it possible for these small units to establish trunk services? It is as well to look for a moment or two at the nationalised transport service at it is today, at the care and maintenance of vehicles, at the efficiency it has reached. Many deliberately overlook the increased efficiency under the nationalised transport scheme. Hon. Members opposite talk about increasing the productivity of the country, but in everything they do they try to decrease the productivity, to increase charges or to make it more difficult for us to sell our goods. In transport we have another example of how they will increase the costs of the country's productive effort.
Since we, when in office, took over some 3,000 road haulage systems, what do we find? It is worth repeating these figures, which I have given in the House before. Managers represented over 3.7 per cent. of the staff. Now, they are reduced to less than 0.46 per cent. Clerical staff represented 14.7 per cent. of the units taken over. They are now reduced to 13.12 per cent. The proportion of operating staff has gone up from 59 per cent. to 67 per cent.
It is proposed to hand back the industry to private enterprise small units. This means increasing the administrative charges tremendously and giving a much dearer service to the users of transport. Much has been said about the owners of transport, but no attention is paid by the party opposite to the needs of users of transport except on the mythical scale of paying lip service.

Mr. James Harrison: Before my hon. Friend leaves those interesting figures, may I ask whether he is aware that only last week in Nottingham the Parliamentary Secretary told a selected audience exactly the opposite: that under nationalisation the administrative staff of road haulage had grown tremendously?

Mr. Popplewell: I am aware of many false speeches made in the country which have never been backed by facts and figures. These figures are available to disprove entirely many of the mythical

statements that are made in this way. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to contradict my figures.

Mr. Callaghan: Come on.

Mr. Popplewell: The silence of the Parliamentary Secretary is very interesting. It is all very well for him to go to the country, to Nottingham and elsewhere, to make these senseless charges, but now when we produce the figures his silence acknowledges that he is wrong.

Mr. Braithwaite: I am certainly not going to rise every time that I am misquoted by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison). I merely said that there were 12,000 officials running 41,000 vehicles.

Mr. Harrison: What did the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that?

Mr. Popplewell: That is not quite what the Press report of the hon. Gentleman's speech says. He is somewhat churlish in his attempt to justify what he said. Far too much has been made of this in the country, and it is as well to get these things on record. Let us hope that it will end a lot of this nonsensical propaganda.
In addition to the reduction in administrative staff and to the increased efficiency, let the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary dispute what I say now. Under a nationalised road haulage system, the charges have increased less since vesting day than have those of private enterprise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member has referred to me and I am always anxious to oblige him, for reasons that he knows. My recollection is that charges have gone up in nationalised and in private road haulage by broadly the same extent. Sometimes the nationalised side makes an increase of 10 per cent. and then it is followed later by the private sector, or it may be the other way about. In one instance the increase came first from the nationalised sector, and with another increase it was the other way round, but by and large there is not a great deal of difference between the two.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister knows full well that the average charges of nationalised road haulage have gone up by approximately 35 per cent. since vesting day while the average charges of


private road haulage on long distance have gone up more than 40 per cent. Those are the answers and that disproves quite a lot of the mythical statements which have been made.
I appeal to the Minister; if he is really interested in transport as a whole as distinct from serving the needs of his political party's financial backers, and interested in preserving the needs of transport, he ought to have another look at this matter. He ought to accept our Amendment. It is not all we desire, but it is the best we can make of a particularly bad job as this matter has come down from another place. The Minister knows full well that the terms of our Amendment would operate fairly quickly after the assets have been disposed of, when it is no longer within his control. He must know the history of transport and that it has evolved round the establishment of large, efficient units.
In this sell out many large depots will be disposed of. What a shocking waste of manpower and knowledge of the transport industry that will involve. In these haulage depots, some large and some smaller, have been built up trained transport minds to operate them. If these depots are broken up and become fragments these people will either leave the industry, or, if they transfer to private road haulage on a much smaller scale, we shall lose the advantages of the knowledge they have gained with a view to giving us an efficient transport undertaking. It is a tremendous waste of manpower and talent which is so necessary for the national interest. The Minister has had many looks at this Bill—it was suggested that the grandparents of the Bill were in the White Paper a long time ago—and we all know the great changes that have been made. It has been almost like a film, in which the scene changes as one watches. The Minister's mind has changed as we have watched the development of this Bill. With that flexibility which I know he has, I do hope that at this late hour he will have some qualms of conscience and try to resurrect something useful in the Bill.

Mr. Mellish: I want to take up with the Parliamentary Secretary the question of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison), because he has not really answered the point then made. He

does not take much part in these debates. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not allowed to."] I expect that it is because the Minister does not allow him to, but on this occasion this is a matter of his own personal responsibility.
As I understand, he made a speech in which he said there were 12,000 officials to 40,000 lorries and thereby conveyed the impression to that very select audience of road hauliers that there were more managers and clerks than there had ever been before and that one could visualise this as a reason why the industry should be denationalised and we should get back to private enterprise.
8.45 p.m.
I wish to ask a straight question which I hope will be answered. Does the Minister agree that the number of officials and staff employed under the Commission are less than were employed under private enterprise?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order. I do not think it would be in order to answer that question during the discussion on this Amendment. There may be an appropriate time to deal with that subject, but it is not while we are discussing this Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: I am sure I can relate my arguments to it. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister wish to clear this issue out of the way they have merely to say, "Yes," or "No." The Parliamentary Secretary intervened a short while ago to say what he said at Nottingham. I am asking whether he agrees with the statement which I have made. He does not say very much in this House about transport, and perhaps the Minister will deal with the matter.
It is right that we should get the position of the Commission in the right perspective. I wish to make it part of the argument I am advancing that the number of staff employed is related to the number of small men in the industry. We argue that with big units the number is not so great, but with small men in the industry the number of staff tends to become bigger. I say that the Commission, coming in as a big unit, has been able to reduce the number of staff compared with the number employed under private enterprise, and I ask that


the Minister confirm or deny that statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In a number of grades I think that undoubtedly they have made reductions. Reading what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, I think he was making no comparison between the private and the public sector. He stated that x number of people were employed to run y number of lorries by the Executive, a statement of fact which no doubt he had taken from their annual report.

Mr. Mellish: That part of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech which was quoted was of interest, I expect the rest was boring. But the part quoted was not true in the sense that it related to the industry before nationalisation. The Parliamentary Secretary has tried in the past to say some decent things about the Commission and now he makes a statement which he knows to be untrue in the sense in which it was said. He should have given the whole of the facts, but we have it on record that he made a statement and never told the whole story.
I wish to get back to the question raised earlier regarding the United Dominions Trust activities recently in connection with visits to some depots. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had not given the names of those who had visited the depots or details of the sort of things they had been doing. The noble Lord said it was most unfair for my hon. Friend to make statements of that character, particularly when, by innuendo, as it were, an hon. Member might be involved as he was a director of the United Dominions Trust.
My hon. Friend did mention the names of two people who had been known to visit these depots on behalf of the trust, but in case there was any misunderstanding I will repeat them. One was a Mr. Bristow, a director of a firm with an office in King William Street, London, and the other a Mr. H. P. Kirkman, who, evidently, is associated with the office of the United Dominions Trust in Leeds. These people have been to various depots and they have been making inquiries

from the staff to find out what are the plans for the disposal of these vehicles which are to be sold in the big sell out. It is felt that these unauthorised disclosures, or attempts to get them, may well anticipate the plan for disposal which is the job of the new Disposal Board which we have not yet set up, because this Bill is not yet law.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very important matter. When some of the earlier and wilder charges were being made I thought that they related more to the approach to individuals who might themselves be anxious to get credit facilities. Attempts to find out more about the organisation of the Road Haulage Executive are much to be deprecated. That is a very different matter. But to say that, therefore, it is wrong to approach an individual who may be just the sort of person who wants to become master of his own small business afterwards is quite another matter. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be very wrong to get information secretly which the Commission did not wish them to have.
That is why I said that I thought that the Commission had acted quite properly in saying, if any of these people doing their perfectly legal business came along, that the matter should be referred to them before any answer was given.

Mr. Callaghan: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, may I say to the Minister, who should be in no doubt about what I said, that I made two charges. The first was that the representatives of the United Dominions Trust were going to Road Haulage Executive offices to secure information about their work and the possible break up. The second charge I made was that they were bringing to the notice of the people they were approaching the very advantageous financial assistance that they would be able to give if these people desired to go into the road haulage business themselves after denationalisation. If the Minister cannot see the connection between offering a man financial advantage and, at the same time, asking him for information about the job that he is doing then he is more naive than I think he is.

Mr. Mellish: I know that that is what my hon. Friend said. It was obvious to me that when these people from the


United Dominions Trust went to the depots they did not go there merely with the idea of finding out what sort of vehicles there were there, and so on, and engaging in the sort of pleasantries adopted by an insurance agent saying, "If you want a few shillings you can get them from me." Obviously, their purpose was far more serious than that.
It is useful to have the statement from the Minister now that he deprecates it. That is why it is important that one of the men who is a Member of this House and a director of this firm should be here. I understand that every effort has been made to make sure that he knew that this matter was to be brought up tonight. The Chief Whip of the Conservative Party is a very able fellow. I know that most hon. Members of the Conservative Party are scared out of their wits to leave the House. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in the House.

Major Sydney Markham: As a matter of courtesy, was the hon. Member informed direct?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. That is the whole point. We have been trying to get some assurance on this matter.
I have a photostat copy of the visiting card, as a director of this trust, of one of the men I have mentioned. He is not an office boy going round to these places. He is a director seeking information. We think that this sort of thing ought to be known. This ties up with the earlier statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East about certain credit facilities which are being allowed to these people by the Government, according to facts elicited on the Floor of the House in Question and answer by my hon. Friend.
I will not pursue the point except to say that it ought to be said for the Road Haulage Executive that a Press statement was issued which said, frankly, that it was intolerable that employees who were public servants should be approached in this way without regard for the elaborate procedure and the necessary safeguards which Parliament provides. Moreover, the Executive said that this would tend to undermine morale which it was especially necessary at this moment to maintain. I hope therefore that the Minister will make it his business at an early stage—I hope tomorrow—to see

that a statement is issued from his Ministry deprecating the action of these people and ensuring that it will not happen again.
I now want to make reference to the question of the efficiency of the trunk services which we claim have been an important factor in the industry. I have said something on these lines before. I come from an area which at one time had 60 firms engaged in the road transport business, and, when we nationalised the transport industry, these 60 firms were taken over. I say to the Minister that, during the period in which I have been a Member of this House, I have not had a single complaint from any one of these firms or the many customers of the British transport industry with regard to the efficiency of the services given.
It is an extraordinary thing that all these complaints about road transport services have always been sent to Tories and never to us. I should have thought that, in an area like mine, where there was unhappiness among some employees at the time when we nationalised the industry, they would have been only too pleased to have written to me to give specific examples of the stupidity of nationalisation and so on, but they have not done it.
I can tell the Minister that what has come back to me is a report to the effect that the trunk services given by the depots in my constituency—and these trunk services are day and night services, and some are not economic—[Interruption.] The British Dominion Trust had better find out about that; probably they would not want to take them over. Quite frankly, the average customer whom I have contacted, the employers and the average trader have told me that they regarded the trunk services now being given to them as first-class, and have asked that they should be continued. They are hoping, and I do not know how it will work out, that, somehow, these services will be maintained even when this Bill becomes law.
My final point concerns this old argument about the small man. On this, I will address a few questions to the Liberal Party, because they have some weird ideas about it, too. I believe that the Liberal Party would abolish all licensing systems. They believe in anybody and


everybody being able to come along and buy a lorry for a few bob, get it on the roads and start operating. This is an incredible business, because, in my own lifetime, I have seen this sort of thing actually happening with a member of my own family. He did precisely what the Liberals are talking about. He bought a lorry on the cheap when there was a lot of unemployment and there were lorries about, and he decided to work very hard as a private individual and give all the service possible.
I remember that one thing he did was to take a load from London to Liverpool, for which he quoted a rate with which no decent employer could possibly compete. No employer paying decent wages and providing decent conditions could do so. However, he took that load to Liverpool, and then, to get his running expenses and the cost of his petrol and oil, he said he would be prepared to bring a load back from Liverpool. He said that the reason why he was doing it was to build up his goodwill.
That is an example of the reason why decent employers have said, "I cannot pay decent rates of pay and provide decent conditions for my workers while there are people like these." They clamoured to the Government of the day begging them to do something about it, and that was the reason why we got the licensing system, by means of which every Jones, Smith, and so on, can be given licences.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Not Smith.

Mr. Mellish: If we are going back to that period, then the Government will have to do precisely what was done in the early 1930s. I am sure that bad as the Liberals are—and they are not a very bright lot—they do not really want us to bring in legislation which would put us back to the position of the 1930s, because most of the legislation in those days was not much use anyway. I believe that on all counts this Amendment is justified.
9.0 p.m.
When we talk of the small men, we mean the ordinary people in the country, the customer and the consumer, who ought to have the best and most efficient service at the cheapest possible rate. It is only by having a proper co-ordination of road and rail that we can get such a service. Had the Commission been allowed to continue to operate there is no doubt that in the long run, in the not too distant future, our transport system would have become not only the most efficient in the world, but also the cheapest.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 276.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[9.1 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Crouch, R. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Darling Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Davidson, Viscountess


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullard, D. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donner, P. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Barber, Anthony
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Drayson, G. B.


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Sir David
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)


Baxter, A. B.
Carr, Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Duthie, W. S.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Erroll, F. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fell, A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fisher, Nigel


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cole, Norman
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Birch, Nigel
Colegate, W. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Black, C. W.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, John


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe&amp;Lowsdale)




Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Longden, Gilbert
Roper, Sir Harold


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Godber, J. B.
 McAdden, S. J.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCallum, Major D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, R. Donald


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesborough, W.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Sir Robert.(Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harden, J. R. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Stevens, G. P.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Henderson, John (Catheart)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.
Studholme, H. G.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Teeling, W.


Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nichols, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R.H.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tweedsmuir Lady


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Pete, Brig, C. H. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Kerr, H. W.
Peyton, J W. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wellwood, W.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wood, Hon. R.


Lindsay, Martin
Rayner, Brig. R.
York, C.


Linstead, H. N.
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Llewellyn, D. T.
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (BlaCkpool, S.)



Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson-Brown, W.
Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)





NOES


Adams, Richard
Bevan, Rt. Hon, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Blackburn, F.
Burke, W. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, L. J.


Baird, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Carmichael, J.


Balfour, A.
Bowden, H. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowen, E. R.
Champion, A. J.


Bartley, P.
Bowles, F. G.
Chapman, W. D.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bence, C. R.
Brockway, A. F.
Clunie, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Benson, G.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collick, P. H.


Beswick, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda







Cove, W. G.
Jones,David (Hartlepool)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, E. W.


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


Fienburgh, W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fool, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, S. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, G. O.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Glanville, James
Messer, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitohison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thornton, E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.
Timmons, J.


Grimond, J.
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Murray, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Nally, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Viant, S. P.


Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wade, D. W.


Hargeaves, A.
O'Brien, T.
Wallace, H. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oswald, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Mist M.
Paget, R. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pannell, Charles
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Holt, A. F.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, George


Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hoy, J. H.
Paton, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, F. T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Charles
Williams, David (Neath)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John
Wyatt, W. L.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, William (Camlachie)



Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Richards, R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen.

Question put accordingly "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 288.

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m


Adams, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Bartley, P.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Nally, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bence, C. R.
Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hargreaves, A.
O'Brien, T.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oswald, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C, R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pannell, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, T. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Carmichael, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Darling, George (Hillsborourh)
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Kinley, J
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davits, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, E. W.


Deer, G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon, George (Vauxhall)


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Swingler, S. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, G. O.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)




Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
West, D. G.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thornton, E.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Timmons, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Tomney, F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wigg, George
Yates, V. F.


Usborne, H. C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.



Wallace, H. W.
Willey, F. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, David (Neath)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. A. Allen.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Alport, C. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dugdale,Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Duthie, W. S.
Kerr, H. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Erroll, F. J.
Lambton, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
 Fell, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Astor, Hon, J. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R.K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fleelwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Barber, Anthony
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Barlow, Sir John
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Martin


Baxter, A. B.
Foster, John
Linstead, H. N.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bed, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Longden Gilbert


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
LOW, A. R. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Birch, Nigel
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Black, C. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Gower, H. R.
McCallum, Major D.


Bowen, E. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Boyd-Carpentr, J. A.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H (Galloway)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Rest and Cromarty)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullard, D. G.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Burden, F. F. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.


Campbell, Sir David
Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Carr, Robert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bedmin)


Channon, H.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus


Churchill. Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maudling, R.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Cole, Norman
Hollis, M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Colegate, W. A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholls, Harmar


Cranborne, Viscount
Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Crouch, R. F.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Donner, P. W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.







Partridge, E.
Shepherd, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Tilney, John


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Turner, H. F. L.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Turton, R. H.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Soames, Capt. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K.


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, R. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Profumo, J. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stevens, G. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Renton, D. L. M.
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Robson-Brown, W.
Studholme, H. G.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Roper, Sir Harold
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Teeling, W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
York, C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)



Scott, R. Donald
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We have already discussed the terms of the Lords Amendment to all intents and purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is designed to meet the criticism that the words "concentrated in too few hands" were vague and that refusal of a tender on those grounds should not be undertaken solely by the Disposal Board or the Commission. The new wording, which I commend to the House, defines more clearly the circumstances in which it is intended that a tender might be refused on these grounds. It also provides that it should not be refused wholly or mainly on such grounds without the consent of the Minister.
In our view these phrases are better designed to secure the end that we have in view than was the original wording, and I am glad to say that in another place the spokesmen for the Opposition were almost lyrical in their approval of this change of words.

Mr. Jay: I think the Minister's introduction and explanation of the Lords Amendment were all too perfunctory. Surely the Division on the Closure which we had a few moments ago is fairly good evidence that the House is anxious that these matters should be thoroughly and carefully considered. At any rate, that is our view. I should like to point out, first of all, that we have not as yet had any discussion on the Lords Amendment which the Minister has just moved.

Hitherto we have been discussing our own Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I should like, therefore, to draw the attention of the House to the Lords Amendment itself, and I should like to begin by asking the Minister, or one of the auxiliaries of the Government, a question.
A short time ago, in the previous discussion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that we on this side of the House were anxious that the method of operating transport services under the Bill should be decided by the bureaucracy, from which I took him to mean the British Transport Commission. The hon. Gentleman said that he and his hon. Friends on the other hand wished the future of road transport, after the disposal which we are discussing, to be decided by the forces of competition and enterprise—or some such phrase. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not he agrees with that expression of opinion and policy by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
What strikes me is that it was not, of course, simply we on this side of the House who suggested that these matters should be regulated by what the hon. Gentleman called the bureaucracy, that is to say the British Transport Commission. What does the Minister's Bill itself now propose? The Lords Amendment amends Clause 3 (6). What does it say? There is no harm in looking at what we are discussing because there may be some hon. Members who have not been in the


Chamber the whole evening. That subsection says:
In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission"—
and I draw the attention of the House to the word "Commission"—
shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
In the Bill itself as proposed by the Government it was to be the Commission, what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West called the bureaucracy, which was to regulate how far road transport should in future be concentrated in too few hands or in a larger number of hands. Therefore, I think it is rather surprising that he should have attacked us for taking the view that the Transport Commission should have that authority. It was not merely the Bill itself which gave a large authority to the Commission in this matter. The Lords Amendment does the very same thing and leaves the supervision of this process very largely in the hands of what the hon. Gentleman called the bureaucracy.
9.30 p.m.
What does this Lords Amendment do? It seeks to leave out the words from "avoiding," and to insert other words, with the result that the Clause would read:
the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.
I think the Minister will agree that the substantial words now introduced are those at the end:
without the consent of the Minister.
What does that amount to? It really means, first, that the principal decisions in this matter are still, even if we accept this Lords Amendment, to be taken by the Transport Commission, so that again, as I understand the Minister's present view, he wants us to leave the main field of decision in the hands of the Commission. But he goes on to say that
no such tender shall be refused … without the consent

of what he called the "political head." It may be right or it may not be right to put the final limiting authority in the hands of the Minister.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grknond), from the Liberal point of view, argued against that and maintained that this should be a purely economic and administrative decision which he thought would be better taken by public servants and not the political head. I submit to the Minister that, whether it is the political head of the Department or whether it is the Transport Commission, the process should not be left in the hands of pure competition enterprise, or whatever it was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said was the point of view of the party opposite, and I should like to know whether the Minister agrees with his hon. Friend or whether he takes a quite different point of view.
Apparently, the purpose of this whole Clause is to limit the degree to which private road haulage should after the sell out, as it has been called today, become concentrated in very few hands—should again become, in fact, a private monopoly, or something approaching it. What will happen after the original sale has taken place? Suppose the Transport Commission and the Minister together succeed in preventing what they consider an excessive concentration of these public assets in a very few hands when the original sale takes place. What is to prevent, at a later stage—perhaps in a year or two, or perhaps a few months—mergers and amalgamations as a result of private businesses reconcentrating these road services into a very few hands again?
Following that, I should like to address a question on this Lords Amendment to the Attorney-General, who, we are very happy to observe, has rejoined the debate. The main substance of the Clause is to place a certain degree of restriction and/or jurisdiction in the hands of the Minister. Therefore, arising out of that remark which the Attorney-General made a little earlier this evening, I want to make this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman jumped to the Box in what seemed to me, for a Law Officer of the Crown, a rather hysterical mood—

The Attorney-General: A quite human mood.

Mr. Jay: I did not say that I did not welcome his no doubt human mood. I merely said it was rather unusual for a Law Officer. In reply to a calculated and deliberate charge by my hon. Friend, he said that he resented the accusation that the Government were in any way trying—

The Attorney-General: Not the Government but my right hon. Friend, about whom a personal observation was made.

Mr. Jay: Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend is the representative of the Government in this matter and for the purposes of these debates. Therefore, it is not a matter of great moment whether we refer to the Minister or to the Government but, if it pleases the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will refer to the Minister.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that there is no suggestion of helping the friends of the Minister or the Government to make money? After all, the purpose of the Bill is to help the friends of the Tory Party to make money. It has no other purpose, and will have no other effect, than to enable members of the Road Haulage Association to make profits out of the transport industry.
Since the Attorney-General made that intervention, I want to ask him the following questions, because the Minister has exhausted his right of reply and no doubt it will be the hon. and learned Gentleman who will reply to this stage of the debate. First, does he really deny that the Government, and no doubt the Minister, and at an earlier stage the Tory Party, have had consultations on these matters with the Road Haulage Association? Secondly, does he deny that members of the Road Haulage Association, if this Bill goes through, will undoubtedly make profits out of the transport industry? Thirdly, does he deny that this Bill is supported by practically nobody except by those who hope to make a profit out of the passing of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to call the right hon. Gentleman to order, but the criticisms he is making now may be valid against the Bill but are rather wide of the mark of this Amendment dealing with a Lords Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I submit, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that they are relevant to the

words of this Lords Amendment, which says that the Minister is to have the last authority in the case of a disposal that is:
likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid ….
I should have thought, therefore, that the general purpose of the Minister and the Government in introducing this Bill is relevant in this case, but I was only going to make a few brief further remarks addressed to this point.
I think I am also entitled to ask the Attorney-General whether he denies that the Road Haulage Association has in the past, and for all I know in the present, also made subscriptions to the political funds of the Tory Party. Beyond that I will not pursue that point, Mr. Speaker, but on the general sense of the Clause I will add this. What is this Clause in the Bill doing? It is not returning these publicly-owned transport assets to free competitive enterprise, which the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Liberal Party recommended. We shall not see that situation at all. The licensing system will still remain in force.
What we shall see is a very limited competition between the members of this powerful trade association, the Road Haulage Association, behind the screen of a licensing system which was set out by the Conservative Transport Act of 1933. That seems to me strictly relevant to the whole of these debates. Obviously, of course, the firms which take over these assets, whether large or small, will have a very much better opportunity for making profits if they are protected by a system of licences which secures that only a minority of those who wish to enter the industry may be permitted to do so.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I am following very closely the argument that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been putting. Surely, if they take this view and are so concerned at the position that when these vehicles are returned to private enterprise, which they more or less accept as inevitable—

Mr. Callaghan: No; a lot of them will not be sold.

Mr. Holt: —the proper thing to have done when the Bill was going through the House was to have supported the Liberal Party in their Amendments—[Hon. Members: "Which ones?"]—to ensure


that there was the fullest competition when they were returned to private enterprise.

Mr. Jay: I was not arguing that it was or, was not right that full competition should be re-established—that would be out of order on this Amendment. I was merely pointing out that when the process has been carried through, it will be only a very limited system of competition which will be in force. I hope, therefore, that the Attorney-General will be able to answer these questions and, no doubt, others that some of my hon. Friends will ask.
I only add, in conclusion, that I agreed with the remark which fell from the Minister that in the whole of this subject before us there is, of course, a decisive conflict of loyalties between the two sides of the House. That is perfectly true. Our loyalty is to the nation, and that of hon. Members opposite is to the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Poole: I well remember that when I first read the Bill—it seems a long time ago—the thing which struck me about it was the considerable number of occasions in it in which the Minister reserved unto himself the powers of veto. I do not mind it in this situation, because it means that there will be Parliamentary opportunity to challenge the Minister. There is, however, very great danger in overburdening the Department with a responsibility for decisions, particularly of the type and character which the Lords Amendment envisages.
The Amendment says that power shall be vested in the Commission to decide what tenders shall be accepted or refused, subject to the overriding power of the Minister. I could think of nothing more dangerous than the position that that will create. Everyone who puts in a tender for the purchase of vehicles, if it is not accepted, will write to his Member of Parliament, and his Member of Parliament will then badger the Minister to know why it has not been accepted. That would be a very unfortunate—in fact, a very dangerous—state for any Minister occupying that position. Had I been the Minister of Transport, I should never have taken upon myself the responsibility of making decisions that the Minister has taken in this connection.
The purpose of the Lords Amendment is to secure the maximum degree of competition in the industry. Speeches that have been made in the House from time to time would lead us to believe that there are many people who believe that there is no competition now in the industry, and that under nationalisation we have killed all the competition in it. Therefore, it would not be inopportune if we might have the figures.
The House is being asked to aprrove an Amendment that will ensure the maximum degree of competition in the industry when the vehicles are passed back to those who buy them. There are today no fewer than 425,000 private operators in the transport industry, or there were, at any rate, when I wrote my pamphlet, which I have not been able to bring up to date. Those 425,000 people operate only 925,000 vehicles, so the position today is that this industry, if one excludes the 40,000 vehicles the Tory Party are to sell back, is largely held in the ratio of about two and a quarter vehicles per operator. Is not that a sufficient degree of competition in this industry?
9.45 p.m.
So far as I am concerned, if I had all the money in all the world I would not invest it in the road haulage industry at this stage. I venture to predict that if the Tory Party's philosophy of putting the small man into this business is carried into effect—which I do not believe will be the case—the bankruptcy courts will have more road haulage operators in them than any other section of the community in the next couple of years. This myth of the small man is a pure myth. It is something which the Tory Party have now thought up in order to try to make the Bill respectable. If they were really interested in the maximum degree of competition and in the small man, they could have done that so much more easily in the Bill itself. They need not have waited until the Lords Amendments and until this time.
I agree that we took many small operators' businesses away from them when we nationalised the industry. I can concede that it was very hard on many men and because I feel it was so hard on many men I say that the first man who ought to have gone back in this industry if it were sold was the man who lost his business by nationalisation. But the Tory Party does not say that, either in the


Bill, in this Amendment from another place, or at any time, and they are not saying it today. They are not saying that the degree of competition they introduced by this Lords Amendment shall be competition engendered by the return to the industry of the men they pledged in their election addresses to bring back into the industry. Therefore, they are not redeeming their election pledges.
Is it that the Tory Party believe in this principle of the small man? I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South - West (Mr. Powell) with that synthetic indignation he often works up in this House on the question of the small man. But, if that is true, there is not room for the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power in the same stable on this point. There is not room for both; one has to kick the other out, or one or the other has to go out. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power never believed in securing the maximum degree of competition in the transport industry. At least, he never did when he was a responsible Minister, as Minister of War Transport.
Speaking in another place on 27th October, 1943, he had this to say:
Certainly the experience of the road haulage organisation will be of high value both to the Government and the industry.
He was speaking of the measures of coordination which had arisen during the war and he went on to say:
Nevertheless, we must recognise that the existence of so many separate and small units in the road haulage industry vastly increases the difficulties of bringing about any permanent co-ordination between it and other forms of transport.
Tonight, we would like to know whether the noble Lord the Minister who is supposed to co-ordinate transport, fuel and power still believes the things he believed in 1943. If he does how is he found lying in the same bed as the Minister of Transport on this Amendment?
Is it Tory policy that there should be large units and co-operation with other forms of transport? Or is it the view of the Minister of Transport that he ought to forget all about that sort of thing and create a semblance of seeking to shelter the small man? I regretted the decision to denationalise road transport. As

a good democrat I accepted the decision of the House of Commons in that matter. But now to proceed not only to denationalise but to fragmentise this industry is the height of folly.
It will do no good to the people going into the industry and incalculable harm to the nation. It will increase transport operating costs for the trader, the manufacturer, and the producer at a time when our goods must be conveyed to the dock-side in the cheapest manner in order that we may compete in the export markets of the world. The Government have had about 25 different thoughts on this Bill and have altered it until it is hardly recognisable. Now they are seeking powers to reduce this industry to the smallest possible unit.
I thought the Minister would accept the previous Amendment. That would have given him exactly what he asks now, except that we wanted to be sure the unit created would be operable in the national interest. From this Amendment it is obvious that the national interest does not matter to the Conservative Party if they can get away with some publicity and propaganda and create the impression that they are looking after the small man.
I deprecate more than I can express this decision to reduce the industry again to small units. With the industry in its highly competitive state small units cannot survive. I am not worried about railway transport. I am worried about the poor devils who will be tempted by Tory promises to put good money into this industry. They will have to sell out again, not to a nationalised undertaking from whom they will receive fair compensation for their vehicles and loss of profit, but to a combine; or else they will be put out of business and their lorries left to rot in their own backyards. I am sorry for those men, and it is hon. Members on this side of the House who take the greatest interest in their welfare.

Mr. David Jones: With the characteristic modesty of a Conservative Minister, the Minister of Transport told the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) a few moments ago that this Amendment would place the responsibility for reaching a final decision upon the Minister himself. He went on to explain that the


Minister would not reach a decision on political grounds, but he would be interested in the economics of the matter.
When a Conservative Minister takes power to make a political decision of this kind, he does so apparently in the interests of the country. But when a Labour Minister seeks power to direct certain national matters, he is providing jobs for the boys. This Amendment from the other place will, in the last analysis, put the responsibility on the Minister to take decisions which never ought to be in the hands of a political Minister in any Government Department. The Clause as drafted gives power to the Commission. After all, they are above party politics as a body of men appointed to do a job in the interests of the country. They are mainly transport technicians able to judge the merits or demerits of any case on transport requirements and economics and not upon political convictions.
It was the Minister of Transport who on 11th October. 1952, addressing the Conservative Conference at Scarborough, said that it was his desire to take transport out of politics. The Socialist Transport Act of 1947, he said, was a purely political solution to an industrial problem. He added:
It must be our task, and it is being our task, not to make the same mistake the other way round.
I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, if this Amendment is accepted, it is not in fact placing the final decision as to who are and who are not to get these transport units in the hands of a political Minister. That is done in the blessed and sacred name of small men. The party opposite are not concerned about small men. What the country and the House ought to be concerned about is whether this change in the transport structure will give that service to trade and industry which it must have if it is to survive.
The Associated British Chambers of Commerce and other people connected with business, although they are in principle in favour of de-nationalisation, have expressed great concern lest when this road haulage organisation is broken up it destroys the transport arteries which have been built up from north to south and east to west. It follows that unless there

is some guarantee to trade and industry that there is to be a service and that the people who take over the transport units are big enough to continue these trunk routes, they will be in danger of having their business interfered with.
During the earlier proceedings on this Bill I suggested that there had been built up a large number of main trunk routes covering nearly every important town. It does not require a transport expert to see that. All one needs to do is to get out on any of the trunk routes at about this time of night and watch the lorries passing from north to south and east to west. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) pointed out that large numbers of these services were in existence in the days before nationalisation. I do not deny that but they were not brought into operation by the alleged small men. They could not possibly be brought into operation by small men. It requires a fairly substantial number of big vehicles to provide these trunking routes.
There were a large number of companies in operation before nationalisation such as the Bristol Haulage Company with its 300 vehicles. Thomas Allen and Company with 143 vehicles, the Mickle-ove Transport Company with 800 vehicles and Bouts-Tillotson with 350. These were not small men. These were the people who built up the trunk routes.
10.0 p.m.
Now, we are told that the Minister, who has on more than one occasion during the passage of this Bill informed the House that, when this Bill started its progress, he knew very little indeed about transport but said he was learning, apparently has the capacity, the ability and the knowledge to determine all these intricate problems. He contemptuously declared, as he did at Scarborough, that it was the aim of the Conservative Party to take transport out of politics. Indeed, if the House accepts this Amendment, it will place this industry permanently in the heart of a political struggle, and, for that reason, I hope the House will refuse it.

Mr. Lindgren: I want to oppose this Amendment because I want to protect the small man from the Tory Party and their friends. Let me just give the history of transport in the inter-war years


so far as the small men are concerned. I am concerned because of the mention today, and even the encouragement by the Minister, of certain investment trusts. The Parliamentary Secretary smiles, but his speeches in the country, and particularly his Nottingham speech, show that the Tory Party and its machinations have got, if not some underhand, at least some definite, ideas about what is going to happen. Let us see what happened between the wars.
The small man who wanted to buy a lorry had not the cash with which to do it. Where did he go? He went to the finance trusts, and then what happened? As he could not keep up his payments, the finance trust foreclosed on his lorry. They put the lorry in a sale, at which they knew who was going to bid, and the bid was less than the outstanding loan on the lorry. Then the poor devil was put in the court for the balance between what was raised by the sale and the amount that was outstanding, and who got the lorry? The amalgamation obtained the lorry, and the whole history of road transport in between the wars was a story of the elimination of the small man and the amalgamation, very often, of the lorries of small men which had been bought by finance trusts at forced sales.
What happens now? The Tory Party and their friends—

Mr. Renton: It is impossible to agree with the hon. Gentleman in arriving at the conclusion which he has now reached when we bear in mind that the 41,000 vehicles taken over by the Road Haulage Executive belonged to over 3,000 different owners.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree, but does the hon. Gentleman know the numbers of people who were in road transport in the early 20s. and particularly the small men?

Mr. Renton: Surely, the 1930s are the reasonable years from which to start?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman now wants to start from the '30s, because the Tory Party, then in Government, tried in some measure to clear up the mess of unfettered competition which had been created between 1920 and 1930, and they themselves brought in the licensing system. These poor fellows in the early days, the ex-Service men to

whom they had referred, lost practically every penny they had put into the business.
What is to happen now? The investment trusts have been paraded in this House today, and I am glad they have, because it may tend to curb their activities in the country. They are now trying to play the same game as in the early '20s in order to encourage small purchasers, out of whose bankruptcies they get the lorries in amalgamations. The whole tendency, not only in transport but in all competitive industry, has been for large-scale private enterprise to come in on the bankruptcies of the little men, but nothing has been said from the other side of the House about what is equally as important—the question of public safety. Some of us who have been engaged in transport know what went on.
What happens to the man with his one or two lorries? He does everything he possibly can to keep up the payments for his lorries in order to have at least some money coming in on which to live from day to day. Very often he cannot afford—nor has he the skill to do it himself—to maintain his lorry in a roadworthy condition. The combination of a small haulier and of a first-class mechanic occurs sometimes, but not very often.
What happened before the war? Quite sensibly the small man had his lorry maintained by a local garage proprietor and agricultural engineer, who did the work reasonably well. Then the owner of the lorry could not pay the bill for the maintenance of his vehicle and the garage proprietor quite gently but firmly told him that it was no good bringing the lorry in for servicing until he had paid the outstanding account.
What did the poor devil do? He ran the lorry to death. There are some of us on both sides of the House who know from our experience, either as legal men from the point of view of prosecutions or from sitting on the bench, the sort of cases which were brought by the police because lorries were unroadworthy. We only came into contact with those cases after there had been an accident. The ones that got through without an accident are anybody's guess.
The story behind each case was always the same. The man concerned had been working his lorry to death and overloading it nine-tenths of the time. The


result was long hours, tiredness, accidents. Are not hon. Gentlemen opposite concerned about public safety on the roads? I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has vanished. It does not matter because he does not contribute much to our debates. The Minister has to carry all the fire of the day, but the right hon. Gentleman is responsible inside the Ministry, or at least his predecessor was, on the question of safety. Is not the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary concerned about road safety?
The question of the roadworthiness of vehicles is a prime factor in relation to public safety on the roads. There is very little to complain of concerning the actual mechanics of driving, but even the most skilled driver cannot work brakes which are not there or mend a connecting rod when it snaps. Where did we find the highest standard of maintenance of vehicles? We found it in the large-scale concerns such as Pickfords, Bout-Tillotson, Faircloughs, and similar undertakings who because of their very names dare not let a case of unroadworthiness go into court. They had the capital behind them to provide workshops manned by competent mechanics in which to maintain their vehicles.
Is it not part of the responsibility of those who are supposed to be dealing with the public safety to be concerned with the disposal of the vehicles and with how they are going to be operated and the condition in which they will be operated after they are disposed of?
I am opposed to the Lords Amendment because if it were effected it would mean that the small fellow would be encouraged to use whatever capital he had got and to borrow the rest from a finance trust; and then, in an attempt to keep his head above water, he would let the vehicle and its maintenance go. I go even further. It is bad enough with the fellow who has one vehicle but when he has two or three vehicles it is not much better. There comes in again the question of the employment of individuals. In previous debates and in Committee the Minister has paraded his concern at the general standard of remuneration, welfare and conditions of employment of those engaged in this industry. I believe that some of my hon. Friends made reference to this matter on an earlier Amendment today.
We in the transport industry had all our fight, and practically the only fight, on wages and conditions of employment with the fellow with one, two or three vehicles, the small operator. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said when referring to the operation of one lorry by his relative in the East End of London, they were not paying the proper rates. The only place in which we could get enforcement of the wages and conditions agreed to was the larger companies.
The biggest factor in arguing this matter with the larger companies was their immediate turn-round—I do not blame them—and saying, "Its all very well, but we depend for the payment of wages on the freight charges we can get. What are you doing about those employers who are not paying proper wages, are employing men for long hours and are undercutting us on rates?"
The employment of small men in transport, particularly in trunk transport, means undermining the whole position of wages and conditions of employment within the industry. It means what is more important even than that, danger to public safety on the roads. It means a bad service to the transport user.

Colonel Cyril Banks: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises that many of the very large concerns, with one of which I was associated, started with hire purchase. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that some of the largest companies which were taken over under nationalisation originally started with hire purchase and became some of the finest companies.

Mr. Lindgren: I concede that point. With a large number of small individuals there would be varying degrees of organising ability and of traffic available to them, and some of them were lucky or fortunate in their organising skill and the power of drawing and holding workmen. There were fortuitous circumstances such as particular contracts or nearness to building sites which meant the cartage of gravel for a long period under a long contract, which would help to get one or two individuals started.
Where do they get their extra trade from? They build up through the failures and bankruptcies of other fellows. Unless there is a continually increasing


volume of traffic—I know some of it came from taking business away from the railway companies, but I am not now arguing co-ordination of road and rail—there is a struggle for the traffic that is available. If there is a smaller number of operators they get a larger proportion of the traffic available.
It is so simple that it seems almost unfair to the House to expound it. I concede that a number of people who started small companies ultimately came to have large companies. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey will equally agree that while he and his friends progressed as a result of operating on a large scale and of the good service which they gave to their customers, many of the others went to the wall.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Banks: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to mislead the House. He has dealt with many subjects and made many claims about British Road Services. He makes out that overloading and the bad condition of vehicles were due to them. He must appreciate that since they have been nationalised and since they had 42,000 vehicles in the road service they have been running to only 57 per cent. of their capacity.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Whether that was so or not, does not arise on this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: I accept some of the statements which the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey has made, but I must correct him in one respect. I never made any accusations against British Road Services. Even under private enterprise, the main, large-scale operators did not avoid the law of this country, and of course British Road Services dared not.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) managed to get hold of the case of one manager who did something wrong, and, of course, it has been paraded in Tory pamphlets from one end of the country to the other. One has to look for that case with a microscope, but those of us who sit on the magistrates' bench have other operators before us every week.
Overloading arises generally through scraping for traffic and from the very hard lives which these men have to lead

and their necessity to make ends meet. Why did the Tory Government have to insert provisions in their 1923 Act dealing with road traffic for weigh-bridges up and down the country and give the police the right to take any overloaded lorry off the road? There was so much over-loading that they wanted to provide for an immediate check of loaded vehicles. Why did the Tory Party bring in such provisions as the requirement to carry log books on lorries?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a very long way from the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: I contend that the conditions which called for the bringing of order into road transport, and the licensing system and so on, arose from the operations of the small man. It did not arise from the operations of the Pick-fords, the Carter Patersons and the Hays Wharfs of the transport industry. It arose from the unfair wages paid and the overloading of vehicles by small-scale operators. This Clause in the Bill, with this Lords Amendment, gives power to the Government and an instruction to the Minister to use his political influence to see that units are broken down to small-scale operation, irrespective of the effect on the industry and the service to the public. I oppose this Lords Amendment because I feel that it will have the wrong effect upon transport, upon the public safety and upon wages and conditions in the industry.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman introduced this very important Lords Amendment with what, to a contemplative observer, might have appeared to be studied contempt; but I think we are now satisfied that it is in fact his natural manner. But it was contemptuous to the House to refer in a very few words to a matter which he has constantly refused to consider throughout the whole of the debates on this Bill.
The Amendment which we are now considering places the House in a dilemma. We have either to accept a Clause which is unacceptable or adopt an alternative which is impracticable. When the Amendment was challenged in the early stages of the debate the right hon. Gentleman said that he could see nothing wrong with it; he regarded it as satisfactory. Day after day the debates have proceeded in this House. We had


the Second Reading observations; we had the Committee stage observations; we had the Report stage and Third Reading observations, and the Bill then went to another place, where Lord Silkin raised this point very fully.
He was supported by many other noble Lords. When I say "many" I am speaking relatively to the entire population of another place. At any rate, the point was made. The Minister then said that he rather thought there was something in it and that he would have a look at it. On the Report stage nothing was done, and the same Amendment was tabled on that occasion. There was a discussion, and again the Minister said that there might be something in it and he would try to do something. Then, at the very end of the Third Reading in the House of Lords, this Amendment was produced and is now presented to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a matter which it is right for him to introduce merely by saying that there is nothing to say about it, as it has been discussed quite a lot before. He added one single observation in support of his Motion that the House should now adopt this Amendment, which was that when this Amendment was produced in another place it was received by the Labour Peers with—I think he said—alacrity. At any rate he said it was received with some enthusiasm. I am told that he said that the Labour Peers were lyrical.
I have looked through the Lords' OFFICIAL REPORT, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will also look through it and direct my attention to the lyrical observations which were made at that time. The plain fact is that nobody said a word. The Amendment was produced only at the end of the debate, and there was no comment of any kind. Not only was no word sung, but no word was spoken.
I know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am speaking from recollection, and I want to save the time of the House and not constantly to refer to these masses of documents through which we have to plough to check our references. When the noble Lord who is now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—and, as a person interested in Commonwealth affairs, paid

such a lavish tribute to the United Dominions Trust—indicated his noble Friend's intention to consider this matter, there was probably a mild display of lyricism on the part of Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who accepted the proposition with alacrity.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He was much more august than that.

Mr. Hale: At the moment I cannot think of a more august person. The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that there was a riposte when Robert was Browning and Augusta was auguster, but that was Augusta Leigh.
The point does not very much matter, and the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be taking it very seriously, so we will proceed to some rather more important points. In the course of this short but none the less important debate two brief interventions have been made by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) displayed what the right hon. Gentleman would call almost lyrical anxiety to open his mouth for some purpose or another. He obviously had something which he wanted to say. Ultimately he stirred up his courage and made an interjection.
Not a speech has been heard. There has been no oration from the other side of the House. These people who at Scarborough were cheering to the echo proposals to disintegrate transport are not allowed to make an observation. The snivelling wretches of Dotheboys Hall, who used to tremble under the baleful eye of Mr. Squeers, were men of courage and integrity compared with the demonstration which we have had today from hon. Members opposite and the demonstration which we have seen when the Patronage Secretary has come in and glanced round the House with that discouraging air with which he views all the motions of their knees which might indicate something other than fear and which might indicate an intention to rise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) made a speech in which some of the more moving passages were received with a certain amount of sniggering, as almost every reference to poverty is received by some hon. Members opposite. It may be that


the Attorney-General was just not listening and was thinking of something pleasant, but certainly no one seemed to be moved and some people seemed to think the speech irrelevant.
I speak as one who has practised in a very poor area, as one who has handled a very great many cases and who has acted on behalf of the Road Haulage Association, as one who has appeared probably in thousands of cases in the traffic courts. There is no question but that what my hon. Friend said was right. There is no question but that that was the system. In fact, the system was a little worse in the way it started because most hauliers, to begin with, in South Leicestershire, had been driven into the haulage industry by a long period of unemployment, by fear that they would never get back the jobs which they had had in the mining industry, through seeing pits close down one after another, until they used their modest savings to provide the deposit on a single lorry. They had to struggle to make that one lorry pay.
The plain fact is that it is frightfully difficult to make one lorry pay, to keep one lorry on the road, attend to all the correspondence, attend to all the necessary insurances and attend to getting the certificates—and one by one we saw them go. I know that some survived; it is the sort of operation which hon. Members opposite are sometimes apt to mention with approval. I do not think that the principle of the survival of the fittest, whether in connection with economics or in any other connection, is a particularly nice or particularly kind principle. I do not think it is for the benefit of humanity at large.
The proposal in the Bill was a pleasant proposal and everyone could understand, generally speaking, what was intended, but no one could define it. The duty of the Corporation was to prevent the haulage from getting into "too few hands" by the way in which the units were sold and so on. No one seemed to know how to manage to get over that difficulty of definition at all, and this represents the dilemma we are in, because if we vote against this Lords Amendment—and I am inclined to think that we should, although I speak only for myself—and if we succeed in defeating the Lords Amendment, we shall then

be back to this wretched substitute which in many ways is impossible.
It is only necessary to consider the circumstances to appreciate that it is impossible. We discussed them at great length on the Committee stage of the Transport Act, 1947. We devoted hours to it. We discussed the situation in the North of Scotland. One lorry can be a monopoly in the North of Scotland. There are many areas in which there is only one lorry. What is "too few hands" in the North of Scotland? How do we interpret that? Who is to make the decision?
We still have the system that the Disposal Board make arrangements and that the Commission have to agree. We have this curious position that the Chairman of the Board can refer any matter to the Minister, but then, in the end, if the Clause is applied, there must still be the approval of the Minister. We all know that Ministers, competent and incompetent—and no one suggests that the right hon. Gentleman can help his incompetence; we ought not to blame him for it but those who appointed him—are no doubt called upon to deal with quite Herculean tasks.
10.30 p.m.
How on earth the Minister will decide on a question of sales from John-o'-Groat's to Land's End, what are the relevant circumstances, why he should take into account the limited number in one area, or what is a limited number in another, or how he will know the effect of this—an effect for which he will be responsible to this House—I do not know. But he has at least this satisfaction, that the other provisions of the Clause make the whole thing impracticable anyway, because the rest of the Clause provides tests which completely conflict with the one we are now setting up.
Subsection (3) says:
In determining what are to be the transport units for which persons are invited to tender as aforesaid, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of securing that persons desirous of entering or re-entering the road haulage industry have a reasonable opportunity of doing so notwithstanding that their resources permit them to do so only if their operations are on a small scale …
This is, of course, the familiar adoption of a somewhat ancient device. This is the poor widow again, and the Tory Government are looking after the widows and


orphans by making a special provision which will enable them to start up in the haulage business. [Laughter.] I hope my hon. Friends will not take that as a joke; this and the price of tinned ham will be two of the most important things on any Tory platform.
At the end of subsection (3) we get this:
Subject as aforesaid—
and the words "as aforesaid" happen to be very important in this connection—
the transport units shall be determined with a view to securing that the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking fetches in the aggregate the best possible price.
At that stage the poor widows go out and the wealthy capitalists come in. But it is so blatantly obvious that afterwards the Government put in words which moderate its effects and give a more kindly proposition, so we got subsection (6) as originally drafted:
In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
Now that is not one of the conditions aforesaid. That is one of the conditions hereinafter. This is really important, and we may as well recognise its importance.
That is not a condition that the Commission have got to apply at all when they consider getting the highest price. They are bound to get the highest price whatever they do, except with regard to the conditions set out in subsection (3). There is no limitation in subsection (6) upon their duty to get the highest price. How on earth is it seriously suggested that they can decide to sell to the highest bidder and at the same time decide not to sell to him because it is thought that he has already got a few too many lorries, or has not got enough competition? How will they do that? The thing is utterly meaningless.
It was this sort of argument being put—and being put quite obviously much more ably, I admit, than I could possibly hope to put it because it was put in another place—which induced the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in another place to arrive at repentance on the death bed; there never has been a

repentance at so late a stage of a Bill. I never recollect ever reading before of an Amendment introduced on Third Reading. That could not be done in this House. It is an almost archaic and unheard of procedure, even in their Lordships' House, where things are apt to be a little archaic. That was done right at the last second because of these arguments. But then one finds, unfortunately, that the Amendment was so hurriedly produced and so hurriedly introduced that it really does nothing substantial to help.
If this Amendment is carried the Clause will read as follows:
In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.
They will find themselves in the dilemma that it is utterly illogical for them ever to refuse a tender on that ground because there are other matters they have to give specific consideration to. So they cannot do it anyhow and they can only refer it to the Minister, who cannot do it because subsection (3) precludes him from doing it. In these circumstances, the Minister gets up at an early hour of the evening and says quite casually, "There is nothing in this at all. I need not explain this." I am sure it was not modesty on his part or a conviction of his inadequacy which prevented him from explaining this.

Mr. S. Silverman: He did not know.

Mr. Hale: Possibly it is true that he did not know, but I am equally certain that he did not know he did not know. So now we are to adopt this procedure. It is really quite impossible, if we eliminated all the rest of the Clause, to see how anyone can reasonably apply this scheme. The Commission have to avoid
any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward.
Of course, the first step brings us into the portals of the United Dominions Trust, and it is remarkable that one of the


Ministers for Commonwealth affairs, taking part in the debate in another place was complimented on the advertisement he had given to the Trust. I do not resent testimonials to moneylenders who have to apply a higher standard of probity, than most professions and also generosity. We have to be frank. I usually act for the gentlemen who are relieved of 100 per cent., and I would never have dreamed of lending money to any of them, even at 100 per cent., and even if I had any money. But
any step which is likely to lead to the elimination of or undue restriction of competition
relates to a huge financial trust on hire purchase terms advertised by the Minister in another place, flagrantly advertised.
Earl Browder said the Martin Dies Committee gave him 100,000 dollars' worth of publicity, and a former client of mine paid £10,000 a time for getting noble Lords' names on his notepaper, knowing the risk he was running if they attended a board meeting. Now we are told, and the challenge has gone out for a considerable time, that it is no longer in dispute that this Trust has been given access to road haulage depots by the Transport Commission and has been seeking to purchase information about the state of things.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member has just said that he has been told that the United Kingdom Trust has been given access of a special character. What exactly does he mean by that?

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I am holding the hon. Member to his own words—"has been given access."

Mr. Hale: The Minister asks me a question, and then when I rise to reply he raises a taunting finger to me. Access is not a thing given on a tray, or wrapped up in a parcel. If one has access and does not obtain it by assault, or other attack, or by breaking down doors, then one has been given access.
I do not for one moment wish to introduce any personal matter, but we have waited hour after hour after having been told that we have the privilege of numbering among us a director of the United Kingdom Trust, and who should be glad to help us with this most serious

matter, this most serious accusation which has been made by my hon. Friends. There have also been Press statements.
We are told that he is one of our number, but we do not know if he is here or not; and while we appreciate that hon. Members opposite are subjected to a certain discipline and a certain enforcement of silence and restriction of language, I should certainly be the last person to suggest that the Patronage Secretary would impose any discipline upon an hon. Member of this House with the effect of not allowing him to make a statement on so important a subject as this which we are now discussing. I do think that we should try to get the hon. Member here in view of the attack on a large company with which he is associated.
The Minister asks me what is meant by "access." Access was allowed to the premises, and time was allowed to develop inquiries with old bosses when they lost their jobs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman continues to make these allegations he should substantiate them. No special privilege has been given of any kind to the United Dominions Trust. It is equally open to anybody to make the same arrangements with the Road Haulage Association so far as the Government are concerned. They are entirely free to make whatever arrangements they like, and I think the hon. Gentleman is eating his own words pretty effectively.

Mr. Hale: I do not know what I have just eaten, but I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that I feel no indigestion as I should have expected. The argument was that this was a closed door, but now we are told that anybody can go in. But let us speak with care, as I always wish to do, and in this case especially because we are criticising people who have no immediate opportunity for a reply in this Chamber. If it is true that people go to employees of road haulage firms—and no effort has been made from the other side of the House to contradict it, and all this matter was listened to with studied contempt and silence until I raised it now—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is now misquoting what I said. I have already stated that no special facilities of any kind have been given to the United Dominions Trust; and so


far as the representative of the Trust going to depots of the Road Haulage Executive is concerned, I have myself stated that I thought the Commission was perfectly right in saying that such a request should be referred to headquarters. If the hon. Member had been here through the debate, as I have been, except for the last 25 minutes, when I was out for the first time in the whole day, he would know I have said more than once that I approve of the statement by the Commission, and I think it entirely right that they should have referred to them any such approach. Some approaches might be proper and some might be improper, and they are the people to decide.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I am always very glad to have even this explanation from time to time from the right hon. Gentleman. Now, he really is consuming his own words in one enormous swallow. He challenged me when I used the words that they "had been given access." Now, he says that they "have been given facilities."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "facilities."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I did not.

Mr. Hale: Oh, yes, indeed—"the same facilities."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is now confusing two separate transactions. One was the creation of the company between the Road Haulage Association and the United Dominions Trust. The other is the approach to the buildings and depots of the Road Haulage Executive. In regard to the first, I said that no special privilege whatever had been given to the United Dominions Trust. In regard to the second—that is, approach to the depots of the Road Haulage Executive—I have said throughout that this is a matter of internal decision and control, which the Commission is quite entitled to protect, and are capable of protecting, for itself.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman did, in fact, say "the same facilities" were available to all the other companies

as had been offered or afforded to the United Dominions Trust. He will not tell us what those facilities are. As I pointed out before, when one talks of evidence there is such a thing as suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. When a right hon. Gentleman gets up to interrupt a Member of this House on something like four occasions in five minutes to challenge a statement, and declines on every occasion to say what he thinks the truth to be, one is a little inclined to think that his intervention is hardly justified.
What I was going to say was that if it be the fact that offers have been made of financial assistance to people who may or may not be retained in the job of disposing of these vehicles; if they have been assured that they can have the benefits and the assistance of this great Trust if they wish to buy up any of the vehicles from their own employers, to whom they are for the moment responsible, and if at the same time they have been asked, or information has been sought, as to the nature of their present operations, then a jury considering this matter might take a very much more serious view of it than the right hon. Gentleman appears to do.
But I have been tempted to get just a little away from the subject. The whole relevance of the point about finance is that this is precisely the way in which the Government will not be able to ensure that there is complete freedom of competition. It is the old classic method of creating monopolies, and everyone knows, of course, that in a business like road haulage, although it sounds like an Irish bull, one can have quite a considerable number of monopolies. There can be a considerable number of monopolies because of area limitations and area difficulties.
The right hon. Gentleman has not been very candid with the House in another connection. He refused this Amendment to the Commons. He has never told us now why he accepts a suggestion that has come from another place when he refused it in the Commons. There is no explanation of this change of attitude. There used to be a noble Lord Chancellor who was referred to as "a sturdy oak at Westminster and a willow at St. James's." Here we have a sturdy oak in the Commons and a willow in the Lords.


The right hon. Gentleman failed to be moved by the kind hearts, but he is bowing in humble curtsies to the coronets. The whole of the eloquence of my right hon. and hon. Friends failed to move him to accept an Amendment that was accepted, at last, after three short speeches in the Lords. It is not the way in which to commend himself to the House or the way in which he should be able to convince us in these matters.
I have dealt with the first part of the Lords Amendment, and I can deal briefly with the second part, which states that
no such tender shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.
We are told the procedure is to be by tender and that there will be advertised for sale a lot which must consist of not more than 50 haulage vehicles and, which, presumably, will usually consist of a much smaller number. The price is to be submitted by a certain date.
What is the procedure suggested? Have those who tender to submit a full series of details about the nature of their operations and their business? If they have not, then it is hopelessly impracticable for the Minister to apply his mind to the matter. How can he say he has a tender which creates undue restriction of competition unless he has the necessary information? If he has, we are back to the old object of Tory attack. We shall have cries of "snoopers" again in the land and before one can buy a lorry, one will have to show what lorries one possesses, and so on. In other words, one has a fairly full McCarthy investigation.
Without that information, it is wholly impracticable to apply this provision. For instance, here we are sitting in Edinburgh considering applications for the Scottish area. There is a lorry to sell in Wick, and there is one tender. It is a reasonable tender and comes from the man who owns all the other lorries in Wick. It is right, in these circumstances, that it should, because there is not much of a livelihood for a man who owns a single lorry in Wick. The nearest town is hundreds of miles away and road haulage is a specialised business. But the people who have to decide are happy. They refer the matter to the Minister,

who, in his infinite wisdom, comes to a decision.
Then we get the case where there is the man with five lorries and the man with one lorry, both in competition. The man with five lorries offers half as much again as the man with one lorry. At what stage does the demand and insistence of getting the maximum price in the interest of the poor taxpayer begin and at what stage in the proceedings does the Minister become overborne by the Tory desire to encourage the widows and orphans to enter the industry?
The Commission has to consider so many grounds. There are the people who desire to enter or re-enter the industry. The very use of the word "re-enter" indicates some desire to get some preferential treatment for the people who have been in the industry before. What the words "wholly" or "mainly" mean in the Lords Amendment, I do not know. The Amendment clearly cannot mean "wholly" because the Commission are bound to consider price and try to get the highest price. They are bound to consider the needs of people entering or re-entering the industry. It is on the whole of these considerations that we have this business of trying to dispose of the life-blood of the arteries of transport and of this great nation.
It really is monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman should treat this exceedingly important Clause in this cavalier fashion, and say, "I have nothing to say about this. It has been talked over in another place, and I am sure you will understand this. If you want a single reason for accepting it, it was received with lyrical praise in another place"—praise which we have not even had repeated or intimated to us here.
It is unfortunate that in the normal course of events this will be the last occasion when we shall have an opportunity to consider this exceedingly important Clause, at any rate, the last occasion until the repeal of this Measure. The consideration of Lords Amendments is usually the last occasion on which the matter can be discussed. There remains only the Royal Assent, and possibly some observations from Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine, before the Measure becomes embodied in the legislation of this country—at any rate for the duration of the present Government.
In those circumstances, I suggest we ought to have had more opportunity to consider this matter and table Amendments. We should have had more time to try to produce some sort of workable scheme which could be put before the Transport Commission and the people charged with the onerous duty of disposing of these vehicles.

The Attorney-General: I hope I shall not be thought to be out of order if I direct a few observations to the Amendment before the House and the reasons why we are asking the House to accept it. I was glad that the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) was given an opportunity to make his Second Reading and Third Reading speeches which he was unfortunately prevented from delivering for reasons about which we all sympathise with him.
I should be out of order were I to deal with some of the interesting topics we have discussed. We have had a discussion with regard to juries and their behaviour, and prosecutions, and we have heard a discussion about what bed the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power is lying in. We have had a discussion about road safety and snivelling wretches and finally about two gentlemen from the United States whom I shall not advertise again. I think it may not be unhelpful—I hope it will not be—if I remind the House of how this Amendment comes to exist.
It arose as the result of an argument advanced partly in this House and partly in another place that the words, "concentrated in too few hands" were vague and undesirable. It was also said that the refusal of a tender on such grounds, which it was agreed might very well be a desirable thing, should be regarded as a matter not suitable for decision by the Commission, but as one which ought to be dealt with by the Minister. That view having been strongly pressed by the Opposition in another place, this Amendment was put down in order to meet it.
We expected to find that view welcomed here. We assumed there was more agreement between the Opposition in this House and in another place than exists between members of the Opposition in this House. But we find that there is

just as much division between the Opposition here and in another place as there is between hon. Members opposite in this House.

Mr. Poole: And the Government.

11.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am not, of course at liberty to quote the speech made by a noble and learned Lord who sat on the Woolsack during the previous Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—it was made in the present Session, and I understand I am not allowed to quote it verbatim. But I wonder if anyone would have been surprised if he had said something like this that he thought it was satisfactory to get rid of the provision about too few hands; that a decision of that kind is one which could eminently be left to the Minister and not dealt with by the Commission.
Would anybody be surprised if he had said this sort of thing—I cannot, of course, quote his exact words; but supposing he said that he was happy and content to find that this decision had been made to have it dealt with by the Minister? Supposing that was what he said, might not we be entitled to expect that those in this House who admired him so much, and I am sure still do, who agree with him politically, would have accepted the same point of view?
So that I do not think it is altogether surprising that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was entitled to assume, when he moved acceptance by the House of this Lords Amendment, that there would be unity of view between the Opposition in this place and another. If it has turned out during the discussion that that is not so, I do not think he ought to be blamed. It is the fact that this Lords Amendment was directly the result of the discussions which took place in another place, in that most valuable assembly of our democratic system which, once again, has done good service to the nation by producing a useful Amendment.
If I may, I will once more point out what the Amendment involves. First it avoids the use of the words "too few hands" which were the subject of a lot of discussion—

Mr. Callaghan: Clean hands, not too few hands.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is a great expert on all matters of cleanliness, so I should defer to him in that matter. The second point was who should decide? Assuming there was to be a position of this kind, was it desirable that it should be dealt with by the Commission? The general view seemed to be, both here and elsewhere, that it was desirable that it should be dealt with by the Minister. I was a little surprised to find such vehement opposition to the idea of the Minister having this power by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay). After all some of us have good reason to remember with great gratitude his view, expressed so strongly, that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. Surely he ought to have applied that in this instance also?
The new wording which is now being adopted defines much more clearly, certainly in the opinion of very eminent lawyers who do not speak with prejudice in favour of the Government, the circumstances in which it is intended that the tender might be refused on the grounds stated. It also provides clearly that it shall not be refused wholly or mainly on any of those grounds without the consent of the Minister acting, as we should all in this House believe that he would act, in the proper interests of all.
And, as was said—or as perhaps I should say, might have been said—it is entrusted to a Minister who, if necessary, can be brought to book in whichever of the two Houses of Parliament he happens to be at the moment. That is the way in which it has been put. It has also been said that it can be challenged in the sort of way which is provided for by one of the great features of our Constitution. That is the basis, and there is an example of consultation between Government and Opposition in the other place which has produced a result which they thought was satisfactory, which we put before the House as such, and which we therefore ask the House to accept.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I wish to make a short statement which is relevant to the discussion. I understand that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-

brooke) thought he had reason to doubt the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that he had given previous notice to the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Lord John Hope) that he would be referred to in the Chamber this evening. I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend to give the noble Lord prior notice. That was given before seven o'clock this evening before my right hon. Friend spoke.

Mr. Jay: Is the Attorney-General not going to answer any of the specific questions addressed to him? Surely it is his job to do so. I will recall one of them, though I should like him to answer them all. How are the Government to secure, after these vehicles have been disposed of in the way laid down in the Clause, that they are not at a subsequent date re-concentrated again in a few hands and possibly under a complete monopoly? I hope that the Attorney-General will answer that question and also those I asked about consultation between the Government and the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the first question is that there is nothing to prevent subsequent mergers or amalgamations, but we are entitled to call in aid the history of road haulage over the last few years. When the Socialist Government nationalised road haulage they took over only 79 companies with over 50 vehicles and 22 companies with over 100 vehicles. Those figures, though impressive, would not be altogether convincing if in fact those 79 companies with over 50 vehicles had covered the bulk of the road haulage vehicles, but I am advised that the large concerns, taken over on the whole in the earlier stages by the Commission, covered some 14,000 vehicles out of the 42,000 which were eventually acquired.
So we are entitled to assume that the pattern of trade in this field where there was full freedom to merge or amalgamate has led, despite that freedom, to wide dispersal among a large number of comparatively small units. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I missed what he said on the other point because I was not here.

Mr. Jay: As the Attorney-General said that it was untrue to suggest that any of


the friends of the Government would make money out of this Bill, I asked him certain questions. First, I asked whether it was not the case that consultations took place between the Government and the Road Haulage Association in the course of the framing of the Bill, and before. Secondly, I asked whether it was not the case that certain firms and members of the Road Haulage Association will enter the industry and carry on a profitable trade if this Bill is passed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In reply to the second part of the question, I very much hope that a large number of members of the Road Haulage Association will enter this business and give useful service. If the right hon. Gentleman had had his livelihood taken away and his industry broken up by State action he would have found it difficult to retain the same solidarity and mutual loyalty that the Road Haulage Association has kept during the last few rather grim years for them.

On the question about consultation, I would say that if we had been favoured with the attendance of so many people as there are here today during the 14 days when we discussed the Bill earlier, then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) would have heard me refer more than once to the consultation that took place. The Road Haulage Association, the British Transport Commission and a large number of other people were brought into consultation when the broad format of the Government's intentions was settled. If they had not been I think we should have been censured.

Mr. Buchan-Hepbum: Mr. Buchan-Hepbum rose in his place and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 258.

Division No. 130.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Alport, C. J. M.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Grimond, J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N)
Cote, Norman
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Colegate, W. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Arbuthtnot, John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harden, J. R. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hare, Hon. J. H


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Banks, Col. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baxter, A. B.
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Digby, S. Wingfield
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Dormer, P. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenthawe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Birch, Nigel
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hollis, M. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Erroll, F. J.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Holt, A. F.


Bottom, A. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Bowen, E. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Braine, B. R.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fort, R.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Foster, John
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hurd, A. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Gammans, L. D.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Campbell, Sir David
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Carr, Robert
Godber, J. B
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Kaberry, D.


Channon, H.
Gough, C. F. H.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gower, H. R.
Kerr, H. W.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lambert, Hon. G.




Lambton, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Famham)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stevens, G. P.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Odey, G. W.
Storey, S.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lindsay, Martin
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Linstead, H. N.
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Summers, G. S.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Partridge, E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, W.


Longden, Gilbert
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. P. J. L. (Hereford)


Low, A. R. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pilkington, Capt, R. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R (Croydon, W.)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Tilney, John


McCallum, Major D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.L.
Turner, H. F. L.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wade, D. W.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Russell, R. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Markham, Major S. F.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Marples, A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wellwood, W.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maudling, R.
Shepherd, William
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G.


Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wood, Hon. R.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Snadden, W. McN.
York, C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Soames, Capt. C.



Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Speir, R. M.
Sir Herbert Butcher and


Nicholls, Harmar
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Chapman, W. D.
Follick, M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Foot, M. M.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Clunie, J.
Forman, J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Baird, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Balfour, A.
Cove, W. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gibson, C. W.


Bartley, P.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Glanville, James


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Bence, C. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Benson, G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R


Beswick, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grey, C. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Hale, Leslie


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colin Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bowden, H. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowles, F. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hargreaves, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hayman, F. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hewitson, Capt, M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hobson, C. R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Holman, P.


Carmichael, J.
Fienburgh, W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.
Houghton, Douglas







Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, F. W.
Sorensen, R. W


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Murray, J. D.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nally, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Brien, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oldfield, W. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Janner, B.
Orbach, M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oswald, T.
Swingler, S. T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W.E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Keenan, W.
Pearson, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Kenyon, C.
Peart, T. F.
Thornton, E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslir
Timmons, J.


King, Dr. H. M.
Poole, C. C.
Tomney, F.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Porter, G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Usborne, H. C.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T.
Weitzman, D.


Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


MacColl, J. E.
Rankin, John
West, D. G.


McGhee, H. G.
Reeves, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McGovern, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


McInnes, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McLeavy, F.
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wigg, George


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, F. T.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Moody, A. S.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Morley, R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 257.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[11.20 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman


Alport, C. J. M.
Bossom. A. C.
Colegale, W. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bowen, E. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverlon)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R.
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J.M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Banks, Col. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P.G. T.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Baxter, A. B.
Burden, F. F. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Campbell, Sir David
Donner, P. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Carr, Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Erroll, F. J.


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fell, A.


Bishop, F. P.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Finlay, Graeme




Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lindsay, Martin
Robson-Brown, W.


Fort, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Russell, R. S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, R. Donald


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Godber, J. B.
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlebrough, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snadden, W. McN.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Soames, Capt. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimond, J.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stevens, G. P.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major S. F.
Storey, S.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Studholme, H. G.


Hay, John
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Summers, G. S.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, W.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hollis, M. C.
Nichols, Harmar
Tilney, John


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turton, R. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Horobin, I. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Oakshott, H. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Partridge, E.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wellwood, W.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.
Williams, Rt.Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G.


Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
York, C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.



Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Sir Herbert Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Beswick, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Albu, A. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blackburn, F.
Burke, W. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, L. J.


Baird, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Carmichael, J.


Balfour, A.
Bowden, H. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowles, F. G.
Champion, A. J.


Bartley, P.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brockway, A. F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bence, C. R.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Clunie, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Coldrick, W.







Collick, P. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Cove, W. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mclnnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Fienburgh, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Forman, J.C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Swingler, S. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Glanville, James
Monslow, W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morley, R.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Thornton, E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons, J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D.
Tomney, F.


Griffiths, william (Exchange)
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Usborne, H. C.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



O'Brien, T.
Weitzman, D.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
West, D. G.


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Padley, W. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.




Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paget, R. T.
White, Mrs. Eirence (E. Flint)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Palling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wigg, George


Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, Charles
Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Willey, F. T.


Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Les[...]
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Anglesey)
Poole, C. C.
William,, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Janner, B.
Rankin, John



Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
I do so for the purpose of ascertaining what are the intentions of the Government with regard to further progress

on these Amendments. I think that all of us can say, on both sides of the House, that we have had a debate of substance and interest, which has raised important points, and legitimate points, of public policy. I freely admit that the time occupied has been somewhat more than


is customary on Lords Amendments, but we must consider the history of this matter. One point is that the Bill passed through this House under a very severe Guillotine, in the course of which it was not possible adequately to discuss all the principles of the Bill so far as the Committee and Report stages were concerned.
Furthermore, unlike the former Opposition, which deliberately talked and talked on the earlier Amendments in order not to get on, and thereby to have a grievance at the end of the day, we adopted a more rational course and almost guillotined ourselves in order that the greatest number of matters of public interest should arise. But, it was the case that many Clauses were not discussed, and many Amendments were undebated, and the Bill was transferred to another place.
It is also the case that, in the course of the Committee and Report stages the Minister told us that, although we were discussing matters of some importance, we need not worry; he would do something in another place. He did not say what in any detail. In a way, he said, "You are only the House of Commons: I will see to this in another place". Now the Bill has returned and we have, for example, a Clause to set up companies, which could be another Bill by itself, and another Clause of some substance.
In these circumstances, much to our sorrow and regret, it has been inevitable that in the public interest and in our duty to our constituents we should give time to all these matters and proper consideration. It will be our duty to continue to give all these matters adequate and proper consideration. That includes my trade union Friends, who have a lifelong association with some form or other of the transport industry, to whose views I attach, perhaps, special importance.
In these circumstances, I think that reasonable progress has been made today. I do not think any fair-minded person can say that there has been undue talking or improper continuation of the proceedings. The Lords Amendments raise matters of important principle and substantial public policy, and all that we are doing is to carry out the elementary discharge of our public duty and to give reasonable and proper consideration to the Amendments from another place and the Amendments to them that we have

moved—or, at any rate, to the Amendments in so far as we are able to move them.
I think, therefore, that we have done a good day's work. We have not seen so much of the Prime Minister, but he appears to be quite happy tonight at this hour. We are always glad to see the Prime Minister, even if it is a little late.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have been in every Division.

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has. If I was the Leader of the House the Prime Minister would be in every Division also, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman need not claim any special virtue about that, because he has got to be in the Divisions. We have, therefore, given him reasonable exercise.
In the circumstances, I think it would be right at this hour—it is approaching midnight—if the Leader of the House, the Minister, or whoever is in charge, or the Prime Minister himself—after all. he has been in every Division; he must be beginning to be a little tired and fatigued—would be so good as to give an indication to the House of the intentions of the Government regarding further consideration of these very important Amendments that we have received from another place.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I gladly respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions. It has to be remembered, of course, that earlier this afternoon the House suspended the Rule in order that we might continue this debate after the normal hour. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the general tone of the debate and that matters of substance have been discussed.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted that somewhat more time was being given to the consideration of the Lords Amendments on this Bill than was usual, and he explained why it was. We accept that this is not quite the same as other Bills for which there has not been a time-table in the earlier stages—that, of course, is obvious. It is, indeed, for that reason that when last Thursday I announced the business for this week I said it was proposed to give today and tomorrow to this consideration; and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman—he was leading


then for the Opposition, as he is tonight—that no adverse comment was made on that suggestion of time. Therefore, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends naturally assumed that that was considered reasonable by the Opposition. [Interruption.] They made no comment to the contrary at the time, anyhow.
Of course, in these matters there has to be a certain amount of give and take in debate—we quite recognise that; but I also claim that we are giving a fair and reasonable amount of time for the discussion of the Lords Amendments. It all turns on the question as to what is considered reasonable progress at any particular moment of time. The right hon. Gentleman urged that the work that we have done today was a reasonable amount. On the whole, without contravening whether the work has been well or ill done up till now, I think that before we pan we should, perhaps, make further progress tonight.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion, and then we will, to use a phrase of his—a very favourite one—when he was in the position I now occupy, "see how we get along." Perhaps, I may be allowed to imitate the right hon. Gentleman and say, "Let us not adjourn further consideration now. On the other hand, let us go on giving further consideration and see how we get along."

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, I cannot resist the bland and charming manner of the Leader of the House, nor resist having one of my favourite phrases quoted against me. Therefore, let us see how we go on. I do not think the House need be kept to an unduly late hour. In the circumstances, I respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. Let us go on a little longer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 19, leave out "to the purchaser."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We have just had a long and very interesting debate, in which we were able to show that the solution we put forward was one which had been recommended

by noble Lords supporting the Opposition in another place. That did not seem, unfortunately, to work the magic on the minds of the Opposition which we had hoped it would, and they proceeded to try and demolish a Lords Amendment which largely sprang from the ideas of their own supporters elsewhere. Therefore, it is without very much confidence that I commend this Lords Amendment and say that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he heard the arguments for it, said, "This has met us completely."
Shortly, the Bill, as it left this House, provided that the Disposal Board must not approve acceptance of a tender unless they are satisfied that
the price is a reasonable one, having regard to the value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase.
There was a great deal of discussion on this matter in another place, and I know that a number of hon. Members in this House also had some doubts about whether these words
the value to the purchaser of the property and rights which he will obtain by the purchase.
were appropriate.
As the result of various talks I had in this House, and the arguments advanced in another place, we propose to amend this part of the Clause so that it would read:
that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the property and rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase.
The result of this change is that the reasonableness of the price would have to be considered in relation to the property and rights disposed of, and not in relation to their value to a particular purchaser. As I said, the noble Lords who, in another place, had very much interested themselves in this matter and who are supporters of the Labour Opposition, regarded this as a very successful way out of the difficulty to which they had drawn attention. In the hope that the same feelings will prevail among their colleagues in this House, I commend this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I think I can immediately put the mind of the Minister at rest. I would explain that there is a difference between the previous Amendment and this one as regards the attitude of the Opposition. The reason why


we divided against the previous Amendment, despite the fact that in another place it was considered to be an improvement of the Bill, was largely because we do not consider subsection (6) should be in the Bill at all.
11.45 p.m.
We cannot deny that this Amendment is an improvement. It was made as a result of proposals in another place, and it definitely changes the basis on which the value of units to be disposed of shall be determined. I would remind the House that the original proposal fixed the determination of the price according to the value to the purchaser of the property and the rights he would obtain by the purchase. That was typical of the attitude of the Government in the original Bill.
The Government have been concerned all the way through with obtaining the best price for the purchaser. It was only after pressure in this House and in another place, and when attention was drawn to the fact that it was wrong and unjust to put the interests of the purchasers before that of the community, that this change was made.
Though this Amendment is a considerable improvement and we shall not divide against it, it is still somewhat vague. One cannot help feeling uncertain about how value is to be determined. It now reads that the price is reasonable,
having regard to the value of the property and the rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase …
That on the face of it is reasonable, except that we have no knowledge of what standard is to be applied. How is the value to be determined?
The reason we have some doubts is because of the manner in which the disposal is to take place. It is to be in the hands of the Disposal Board. It would not be in order to discuss the Board except to say that we have made it clear we have no faith in the Board. We do not think they will use objective methods to determine the value which should be accepted when tenders are made. We consider the Board to be prejudiced in view of the manner in which the members are to be appointed and the persons who will serve on the Board. In our view it would have been impossible for the original provisions in the Bill to have been carried out, and for the value to be

determined according to the value of the units to the purchaser. This provision is an improvement, but I hope that we may be enlightened about how the value is to be determined.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This Amendment is a good example of how this Bill has been handled. Every other major Bill since I have been in the House, and I think within the history of Parliament, has been a Measure proposed by Government but moulded by Parliament itself. This Bill was treated in an entirely different way. From the start a Guillotine was imposed which nobody, not even on the Government side—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is going far outside this Amendment, which is a very small one.

Mr. Paget: If you will permit me to develop for a moment what I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, I think I can show you that what I am saying is entirely within the scope of this Amendment. The point which I was about to make was that here we have a typical Amendment which, if the machinery of this House and the Committee machinery had been used, would have been included before it ever went to another place. Instead of that, because the machinery of this House was not used, not only in relation to this Amendment but throughout this Bill, we are faced with a situation that every kind of Committee Amendment which would have been put in here in the course of moulding the Bill, has been left to come back to us in this way.
It has also come back to us in a half-baked form. The manner in which the Government originally intended the price to be ascertained has been left out, and nothing else has been put in to tell us the basis upon which valuation shall be carried out. If we had had this provision moulded in Committee in the normal way, not merely the suggestions as to what was wrong, and what everybody now agrees was wrong with the proposal of the Government, would have been considered, but we should also have had the opportunity to consider the alternatives. Those have never been considered apparently, either here or anywhere else and as a result, in this instance and in many other instances, we are getting and the country is getting a much worse Bill than would have been available had the proper machinery of


Parliament been used in the first place. I only hope that the shocking precedent set up by the manner in which this Bill was handled will never again be followed.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I want to raise one or two points on the question of the value. This is the only point at which he will be able to explain to me exactly what will happen in certain instances. Is the value—as I gather was explained in another place—to be viewed largely on the basis of how it appears in the books of the different parts of the road transport organisation? I went round a good many of the road transport organisation depots and looked into a lot of questions, of which this was one.
The Minister may remember I mentioned that, when the road transport organisation took over the vehicles, about 4,000 of them had to be scrapped. A great many of these vehicles, while they were scrapped as vehicles, were rebuilt and the vehicles themselves would be in the books at precisely nothing. Of course, organisations which are building up a great system like this work on the basis of what is known in the industry as conservative finance. That means that although the assets are built up, they are not necessarily so shown in the books, just as, in the case of the shipping lines during the war, when the ships were sunk and were replaced at replacement value, the Cunard and other companies received millions of pounds because they were paid not the book value but the replacement value of the ships lost.
Many lorries are down in the books at an infinitesimal sum compared with their present value, having been rebuilt into proper running vehicles. When the question of the value of the vehicles is considered, what guarantee will there be that they will not be sold at the value in the books, which may be one-fiftieth of what it ought to be, and that they will be sold at their real value to the purchaser?
Generally speaking, the organisation in Scotland has a value beyond its mere material value. Not only is there the value of the vehicles, the material and the workshops, but there is the value of a combination of these as units. It may be that they will be sold as units and, frankly, from the point of view of who-

ever runs the transport, I hope that they will be sold as units. The new proposal about company structures makes that possible.
How will that organisation be valued? Will it be sold as an organisation which is of much greater value than it would be if sold off at an auction with the parts offered separately? With the whole pattern complete its value is two or three times as large as it is when it is considered in bits. There has been a considerable amount of organisation behind the scenes to try to rig the market against the Disposal Board. The tenders which come in will not be tenders which cover anything like the value of the organisation.
Where the Disposal Board see clearly that this sort of activity will be organised like a "racket" to do the community down, what steps will the Minister take to see that public property realises its proper value? I should be glad to have some explanation. I raised this question in an earlier debate but there was no possibility of discussing the matter thoroughly then. I should like to have some assurance that these assets will not be sold off like goods at a jumble sale.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will do my best to provide at least a partial answer to the questions which have been put by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in his courteous and, as always, informative way. We are not dealing here with the capital loss to the Commission. That will be discussed on the Lords Amendments to the Third Schedule. We are dealing with the price which will be charged to the prospective purchaser. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a two-way traffic. It is no good the Disposal Board arriving at a price which is unrealistic and which there is no possibility of anybody paying. That is no contribution to discharging the intention of the Bill. That would merely frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill.
It must be for the Disposal Board to weigh up the evidence and come to their own conclusions as to what is a reasonable price, having regard to the value of the property and rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase, bearing in mind that it may be worth more to one purchaser than to another. There


may be somebody anxious to complete a fleet, and the vehicles available may well lend themselves to just that purpose. Obviously, the value of the property and rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase will be greater in a case like that than in the case of somebody who is not filling up vacancies in his fleet.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the fact is that through the company structure, to which I hope we shall come shortly, it will be possible to sell spares and rights and credits and the whole machinery of a living entity. Of course, the value in many cases like that might be considerably more than the value of transport units. In another place it was at first suggested that the value should be the current value, but I think that Lord Selkirk had no difficulty in showing that this was a better way of doing it. He showed how the current value might fall, and that in the view of the Disposal Board more than the current value ought to be obtained for the business.
12 midnight
He also argued, as I have done, that a particular business might be worth more to one person than to another; so much so that the noble Lord who was then leading for the Labour Party in the House of Lords said—I must paraphrase his remarks—that he had never been particularly enamoured of the phrase "current value" and he thought that Lord Selkirk's Amendment was better than the one that he had moved. That being so, we have some further authority to support this form of words.
I am afraid that I cannot do what I know the right hon. Gentleman would like me to do—give here and now a long catalogue of the considerations which the Disposal Board will bear in mind, but when the names of the members of that Board are announced I hope it will be found that we have been able to choose people who will be good servants of the public, whatever may be their political views. I shall not inquire into that aspect of the matter.
They will be good servants of the public, whose duty it will be to try to get the best price for these national assets. It should also be borne in mind that the capital loss which the Com-

mission suffer will be recouped from the levy, with the addition, as the right hon. Gentleman may have noticed, of the further £2 million which, after a further talk with the Commission after the concluding stage of the Bill in this House. we have found it possible to have incorporated in the Third Schedule. I hope that that explanation will go some little way to meet the fears in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchison: I had not intended to say anything about this matter, until I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in which, so far from allaying any doubts, he most skilfully contrived to raise them. He took the case of the purchaser for whom, for reasons peculiar to that purchaser, property might have a special value. What we are doing here is to leave out the words "to the purchaser"—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This Lords Amendment must be read in the light of the one immediately following, which is to leave out "he" and insert "the purchaser," but I did not want to give the impression that I was steam-rollering the House through these various Lords Amendments. This part of subsection (7) would then read:
…satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the property and rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase….

Mr. Mitchison: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not think me rude if I say that I am really not quite halfwitted, and that I did see what he was proposing to do. I repeat that he proposes to take out the words "to the purchaser" immediately after the word "value." That involves the proposition that when he comes to the word "he" he may say whom "he" is and for that purpose put "the purchaser" back again.
But the objection to the words "value to the purchaser" was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman now tells us the omission of these words is not going to remove. The instance he gave us was the case in which the public, the Commission or the Board would do better because of the purchaser's particular requirements; but there is the converse case, which had just been put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). That is the


case where the value to the purchaser, for private reasons, is a great deal less than the real value.
If the Minister is going to take account of one case he is apparently going to take account of the other, and we are back exactly where we started. Instead of having a true and objective value we are to have the value to our old friends or enemies, the members of the Road Haulage Association. It has just been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman—and I venture to think that the course of the debate both now and previously lends some colour to the suggestion—that it is not wholly impossible that those gentlemen may come to the kind of nasty combination which was reached recently by the London builders and which is now to be investigated by the Monopolies Commission.
That is exactly what we wish to prevent. If the value to the purchaser is going to mean the value to a number of persons who combine to put in an artificial bid, that is exactly what we wish to avoid. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have in mind. Let us take the passage in the Bill as it is going to read when these two Amendments have been made. The Board have to be satisfied that the price is a reasonable one, having regard to the value of the property and the rights which the purchaser will obtain by purchase.
I confess that what puzzled me was why that was put in at all. If one is going to look at the value of the property, one must see what the property is. Anyhow, if one is ever going to decide what is reasonable, one must obviously have regard to the value of what is being sold; and it seems to me that the words which, in this and the following Lords Amendment, we are to be asked to accept, are completely superfluous. I did indeed have at the back of my mind the intention of asking the Attorney-General, whom one is particularly glad to consult on these matters, exactly what effect he thought the words
having regard to the value of the property and the rights which the purchaser will obtain by purchase
meant, and whether in fact they added anything at all to the idea of a reasonable value. I should still like an answer to that question.
It does not seem to me that it is going to make any difference whatever if these words are left out. But there is something much more important than that. The original form of this passage in the Bill did at any rate give a valuer, if one was going to have a valuer, something on which to act by way of instruction. Suppose I am going to sell some property on valuation; the valuer will understand perfectly what is meant if he is asked to give a value on the basis of value to the purchaser. He will equally understand what is meant if he is asked for the value to the seller. But if one simply says "find a reasonable value," he may very well ask for a little more information as to what exactly is meant.
I do not understand, particularly in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, what is the real intention about this reasonable value. I had hoped that at any rate he was going to give some kind of objective answer, perhaps incomplete, but he has completely destroyed that hope by putting back into his reading of what the Clause, as amended, will mean, the very words which it is sought to amend.

Sir Frank Soskice: May I just add a little to what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) have said. I think that this Lords Amendment is obviously an improvement, as the noble Lord said, but it does still leave room for the doubts which have just been voiced. The conclusion I would urge upon the House, in view of these doubts, is that we were right in the earlier stages of the Bill in pressing upon the Government that there should be some reserve price. That really is the only solution of this difficulty.
The Government have, as I understand what the right hon. Gentleman said at the start of our consideration of the Lords Amendment, substituted a real test of value in so far as one can ascertain a test of value. I think that is an improvement because, for reasons I myself advanced in the earlier stages, if one takes the simple value to the purchaser, one might often be taking a value that is far too low. Therefore, in my view at any rate, and in the view of the noble Lord who spoke in another place, the present form of wording is better.
My hon. and learned Friend has felt doubts about the succeeding words, which, if this and the following Lords Amendment are accepted, will read:
which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase.
I take it that those words are simply meant to identify the property and for no other purpose. But whether I or my hon. and learned Friend are right or not, and whether there is room for the doubts he has voiced, I hope that the learned Attorney-General will assist us on that point.
The conclusion which obviously emerges from this debate is that the Government were quite wrong in rejecting the many endeavours that we made during the earler stages of the Bill to try to apply some objective test, some objective minimum reserve price. We made many endeavours, but the Minister, for one reason or another, rejected all of them. The Bill now comes back from another place with many changes made in it there, but we still find that there is no reserve price anywhere in the Bill.
The Minister said we might find something of that sort when we come to look at the definition later in the Bill of "road haulage loss." I have studied that definition but it does not seem to supply what is still required. There is a definition of "road haulage loss" which is open to the objection voiced by my right hon. Friend. The Minister replies by saying, "Well, if and in so far as the definition of 'road haulage loss' gives too low a value, gives simply a book value instead of a real value, that difference is to some extent made up by the provision that there shall be an extra £2 million paid." The Minister has no doubt seen on the Order Paper our Amendment to the Lords Amendment in page 47, line 34, that that sum should be altered to £4 million. We think that £2 million is quite inadequate.
The net result is that we are still where we began in this debate: there is no reserve price; therefore, the value which is to be obtained upon the disposal of these lorries is still left completely in the air. The Minister then said, "Oh, well, that difficulty is got over partly by the provision for the sale through the company structure introduced by subsequent Lords Amendments." That again, is not

in any sense an answer, because all those shares have to be sold in one parcel.
For those reasons, although my hon. Friends feel that they ought not to vote against this Lords Amendment, because it is undoubtedly an improvement on the Bill as it stood before, I feel great regret that the Government have consistently and obdurately, and without any real reason, rejected the many suggestions we made for embodying in this Bill some provision that there should be a reserve price. We formulated various definitions, but apparently they have all been rejected. I do not know how far they have been studied. At any rate, none have been adopted.
Without a reserve price being fixed, the sum to be received upon the sale of these lorries is still a matter of complete uncertainty. Unsatisfactory as the Bill is in our view, not only in many other respects but also in this particular respect, we feel that we cannot vote against this Lords Amendment because it makes the Bill slightly better than it was before, but I think that the whole matter has been left in a very unsatisfactory state and that the Minister certainly does not come out of this aspect of the matter with any credit.

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) in the legal construction he has placed upon this Clause. I think there was a slight misunderstanding about the matter, which arises in this way. There are two Lords Amendments involved here: the first one leaves out certain words and the second one substitutes the words "the purchaser" for "he." If one is considering only one of those Amendments as having been made, one approaches the matter from one point of view. If one imagines they are both made, it is a different matter. We want to be quite clear that, as the Clause stood before the Lords Amendments, the value might vary as between one purchaser and another if one considered the circumstances of the individual purchaser. It was discussed on that basis and an undertaking given that an Amendment would be considered to deal with that situation.
12.15 a.m.
Another point which was raised was that it was suggested by the Opposition in another place that the phrase


"current value" should be adopted. That was not considered to be satisfactory; therefore, what was done was to say that we would put this matter beyond any doubt and first omit the words, "to the purchaser," in page 6, line 19, and then insert the words "the purchaser" instead of "he." The result would be that the Clause would then read:
that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the property and rights which the purchaser will obtain by the purchase.
That means that the reasonableness of the price will have to be considered in relation to the property and rights which are actually disposed of, and not in relation to their value to a particular purchaser. I do not think there can be any doubt of the property and rights with which we are concerned; I do not think there is any ambiguity about what that means. As regards the reserve price, I would not feel entitled to say more than that, as I read the Bill, there is no reason why the Disposal Board should not itself apply a reserve price, but there is no provision for any arbitrary reserve price.

Mr. Mitchison: Suppose the objective of the reasonable price is one figure, and that the price, because of special requirements of the purchaser in regard to his fleet, or other such circumstances suggested by the Minister, is another figure, which is the price indicated by the Clause as it will now be drafted? I am asking in a polite form whether the Attorney-General agrees with the interpretation given by the Minister.

The Attorney-General: I think one must be fair to my right hon. Friend. One has to be quite clear whether we are speaking about the original wording, or after we have agreed to the first Lords Amendment, or after the two Lords Amendments have been agreed to. If both Amendments are concerned there is not the slightest doubt about the first matter the hon. and learned Member raised. Special conditions which affect one purchaser rather than another do not affect the matter under the Clause, as amended. What the Minister said was certainly open to misconstruction, but I do not think anyone could have a doubt about what will be the position when both Lords Amendments are agreed to. One must consider the absolute value of

the property and not the property in its relationship to the particular circumstances or a particular individual.

Mr. Callaghan: We agree with what the Attorney-General says about the construction of this Amendment and the meaning he has attached to it. I think there was a shade of difference between the words he used and the words which the Minister used, perhaps more than a shade. But if the interpretation which is to be opened up by the Government is in the words which the Attorney-General now uses we would accept that and believe it to be the right interpretation.
The Attorney-General has, however, raised a very interesting point in the last comments he made, and I should like to hear the views of the Minister on that. We sought them before on this Clause on the question of the reserve price but, unfortunately, we were guillotined at the time when we were trying to compress a substantial discussion into a short space of time. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said, we consistently raised the question, in so far as the Guillotine would allow, whether it would not be at least be made apparent to the public that the Government were trying to do justice as between the public, whose vehicles are being sold, and the Road Haulage Association, who are buying them, if a reserve price were attached to these vehicles by the Commission, with the consent of the Disposal Board.
The Attorney-General has just made an interesting proposal, and one worthy of our attention. I think we should hear from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—[Interruption]. No, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in his place, has always distinguished himself by the sharpness of his wit, his acerbity, and the clarity of his diction, and we should all be glad to hear what are his views.
It is a serious point. The Attorney-General says there would be something to be said for the Board considering whether a reserve price should not be put on these units. Would a spokesman for the Government reassure us on this matter by saying that it would be his view that it would be a desirable thing if the Board, and the Commission, agreed to put a reserve price so that we could then know,


beyond all doubt, that the prices at which units will be sold will equal
the value of the property and the rights"?
Those are the words of the Clause.
If, in fact, the Commission and the Board, either between them, or separately, could get down to making an objective valuation of the worth of these units as going concerns, and place a reserve price which they themselves would intend to adhere to, there would be something to be said for the statements that the road hauliers are not going to pay bargain-basement shop-soiled prices—jumble sale rates, or any other phrases which my hon. Friends can offer—for first-class goods. I am sure that the Minister sees the importance of our point.
It was a great pity that we were cut off by the Guillotine when this subject was previously raised; but cannot the Minister now give us. an assurance that a reserve price will be fixed and adhered to, so that, when tenders are made, they can be measured against the prices fixed? If so, we should feel that the wording of the Amendment would be a little more effective.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not suppose he will expect me to say there will be a reserve price, whether disclosed or undisclosed, but there is nothing to prevent the Disposal Board making such an arrangement. To make it mandatory, however, to disclose a reserve price, would be absurd.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan indicated assent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We might get a great deal more if we did not come into the open and say that so-and-so was the reserve price; but if we are counting, as we are, on the help of distinguished people who can be relied upon to do this whole business efficiently, I think it far better that we leave it to them. This is the first venture of its kind that there has been, and—

Mr. Callaghan: And the last.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That remains to be seen.
The steady improvement in the Government's position in the country as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I must be careful what I say, because of the

Chair and not from the point of view of accuracy—cannot be wholly dissociated from the welcome that the Bill has received. But it must be for the Disposal Board to make up their minds on the matter.
Speaking for myself, I feel fairly sure that in certain cases, at all events, they will come to some such conclusion. I do not propose to saddle them in advance, however, with obligations before I have had a chance of discussing the problem with them or of hearing their views, and until they have come to their own conclusion.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister has gone some way and we are appreciative of the progress which he is making in this direction. It is the first intimation he has ever given to the House that he has something in mind regarding a reserve price. The Minister has taken a tremendous number of powers to himself in the Bill, and taking note of the number of times that the Minister is to do this, that and the other, I suggest that he should not be shy now. He should take to himself power to give instructions that a reserve price has to be obtained.
I have often heard it said by our legal friends that a cardinal point of British law is that justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done. In the Bill we are dealing with public assets, and if it is necessary for justice to appear to be done to private individuals, it is just as necessary for justice to appear to be done so far as public assets are concerned. When we passed our 1947 Act we laid down very clearly the value that had to be paid for assets taken over. That is a criterion for the Minister to follow. If we lay it down for taking over private assets, surely, if justice is to appear to be done to the public, it must be laid down also as regards the value at which public assets are being disposed of.
It is interesting to know that the Minister is thinking about this. I was intrigued by the Attorney-General's observations. I suggest that even at this late stage the Minister should show some repentance and change of mind and say that he will not throw away these valuable public assets at any old price. Members in another place have said


that as far as the financial arrangements were concerned, the disposal of these assets would rank equal to financial help that was granted for the export drive. That being so, the Minister should indicate to the House what is behind the Government's mind concerning the value of these assets, and should say just how far they are prepared to go in assisting, or in giving some direction or indication to the banks to assist, people to buy these assets.
If this financial assistance is to be given, surely it is fair to ask that it should be given only when we are assured that there will be a fair payment for these valuable assets. It is interesting to know that the Minister shows some repentance after all his stonewalling. The Parliamentary Secretary goes to Nottingham and makes all kinds of statements, but when challenged in the House is very silent. This is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to be the referee between his two seniors and to give us the benefit of his advice; but I ask the Minister to go a little further.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I, too, express appreciation that the Minister should have given some indication of what was in his mind about this problem. We appreciate also that he should say that in considering a price, the Disposal Board should have some reserve in mind, and that there should be the possibility of some reserve. Would he go a little further and say whether he is going to indicate to the Disposal Board the principles upon which a reserve price could be based; and, if so, what these principles will be? Must they bear in mind the total figure they can expect from the different sales? Is that to be the governing factor that the Disposal Board must have in mind if they fix a reserve price? If it is not to be the total realisation, then on what principles will the Disposal Board be expected to base this reserve price, which the Minister now says they may very likely have at the back of their minds when deciding whether or not to accept a particular bid?

Mr. Callaghan: I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would be prepared, in view of the discussion which you have heard and in which the

Attorney-General opened a door, giving us a glimpse at an objective with which we have a great deal of sympathy, to accept a manuscript Amendment in the terms:
The Board shall, furthermore, not give their approval to any such acceptance unless the price is not less than such sum as they have previously fixed as being reasonable as a reserve price to be obtained in relation to the property of the character in question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment at this stage, and he can only speak by leave of the House. I cannot accept such an Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Mellish: I have not spoken on this matter yet. May I move the manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot accept a manuscript Amendment to the Lords Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask whether you are ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will not be able to accept manuscript Amendments during the course of this debate, or is it just at this particular stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not discussing what may arise, but what does arise at this moment.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the procedure which we are following in considering the Lords Amendments, if you put the Question on this Lords Amendment, then, as I understand Erskine May, we may not, after that, move an Amendment. I would submit that this is the moment to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question has been proposed, and once the Question has been proposed, an Amendment cannot be moved.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, would it be possible for me to give notice to you now that I desire to move this manuscript Amendment as an addition to page 6, line 21, at the end of subsection (7), which deals with this point? I now propose this as you will not have put the Question by then.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot give that decision until we come to the matter.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 19, leave out "he." and insert "the purchaser."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Callaghan: I think that this is the moment when, if I am to get this manu-scrip Amendment considered, I have to move it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not feel that at this stage I can accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: I realise that it is within your power to refuse to accept such an Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, with your permission, I would ask the Minister to move an Amendment. We have had an interesting discussion, and the Minister has shown us clearly that he is in favour of a reserve price being fixed.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take it that the Minister is not going back on what he said, even if his supporters are. I shall be sorry if we have to go over this again, but it is important that we should have on record exactly what is in the mind of the Minister. He has disagreed once with the Attorney-General, and we know that this Government speaks with a united voice.
The position is that the Attorney-General suggested that there was a lot to be said for having a reserve price fixed for the sale of these units.

The Attorney-General: What I said was that there was no reason why the Board should not fix a reserve price. I said no more than that.

Mr. Callaghan: I am prepared to accept that wording. We took up the suggestion of the Attorney-General, which was very much in line with a number of suggestions which we had made during the Committee stage. I endeavoured to move a manuscript Amendment to give the Minister power to fix a reserve price which would not necessarily be disclosed. We believe that would enable the public to feel that some regard was being paid to their welfare in the matter and not merely to the interests of the road hauliers.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have intimated that you are unable to accept a manuscript Amendment from me, and I am asking the Minister if he will move such an Amendment, which is bound to be accepted, especially after the suggestion of the Attorney-General. We feel that he should move an Amendment requiring the Board and the Commission to fix a reserve price; that such price should not be published, because it would clearly influence bids, but, that it being known to the Commission and the Board should be adhered to when tenders are made.
This reasonable request came from us in the first place in the Committee stage, and was guillotined without proper consideration. It has now been repeated in a modified and tepid form by the Attorney-General at the end of some remarks he has made. We want to know from the Minister what objections he has to following this course, and we want to know whether he would not consider, in view of the fact that he thinks his party is going ahead in the country at the present time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am now about to suggest a way by which they can go further ahead, and back benchers opposite should be grateful to me.
I am suggesting that if the Minister puts a reserve price into the Bill the public will know that their interests are being looked after by the Government. At the moment all the public know is that their interests are being sold down the river for the benefit of the road hauliers. If the Minister wants to claim real credit for himself and show that he is doing a real job in the public interest he might himself move a manuscript Amendment to put a reserve price into the Bill and to let us know that this disposal is being done decently, honestly and above board.

Mr. Paget: Obviously this is a matter of tremendous importance. Whether the sale should be upon the basis of the best price that can be got, or whether it will be on the basis of a reasonable price, and there will be no sale unless there is a reasonable price is a matter involving millions of public money; because, when one has reason to suspect, as we have here, that there will be a ring against one, without a reserve one is helpless.
The Minister and the Attorney-General indicated that this would be done. They have had many second thoughts in the past. Surely this is the convenient moment at which we should suspend our proceedings in order to give the Government an opportunity to consider whether they will put in a manuscript Amendment? Owing to the unfortunate way in which this Bill has been dealt with, this is the last opportunity when that can be done. The Opposition regard this as a most vitally important point. Will not the Government, in view of the differences between the Minister and the Attorney-General, give this assurance to the public that they will take an evening, a night and a morning to consider it?
After all, the indication of the Leader of the House was that we would see how we got on. We have got through one Amendment without a Division. Now is surely the time, when something important has arisen, to see whether the Government cannot have second thoughts and meet us in some way. If they do meet us on this point, which we regard as one of the most important, the Amendments may then begin to go much more easily—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The moment the Opposition begin to feel that their point of view is being considered and that the Government are trying to meet them, it has been the experience of this House over and over again that that is when a Bill begins to go through.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I am right in saying that, within three minutes of my accepting an Opposition Amendment, we started a 2½-hour debate on another Amendment, despite the fact that that Amendment was giving expression to a view put forward by many hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Paget: Surely the Minister and the Leader of the House have already acknowledged that that debate, though perhaps rather long, was a most valuable one, bringing out really important points? He cannot contradict it.

Mr. Callaghan: Can he not?

Mr. Paget: He has already done that, but he cannot contradict himself within a few minutes. We cannot have the

Minister differing both from the Attorney-General and the Leader of the House. I should have thought any Minister with perhaps a little more experience of the workings of this House would know what a difference it makes when the Opposition feel that the Government are really trying to meet their serious troubles. As I have said, the serious consideration of this Bill has had to take place on the Lords' Amendments because there was, owing to the Guillotine, no Committee stage, so this is the last opportunity. Will the Government reconsider the matter?

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Mellish: This is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene. We are now in the second day of our consideration of the Lords Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke once during the first day for about one and a half minutes. He has not spoken at all today. As Parliamentary Secretary, it might be time for him to enter the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question before the House is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Mellish: I agree. We have been arguing whether or not the Minister should at this stage introduce a manuscript Amendment to cover the points raised by my hon. Friends. There has been a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Attorney-General. Here is a good opportunity for the third man, the odd man out, the Parliamentary Secretary, to come in now and settle the matter. This is a good opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to show how much he knows about the matter and also to start earning his salary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that theme.

Mr. Mellish: We are entitled to know whether the Government will move a manuscript Amendment. This is our last opportunity. The moment it has gone we shall have no further chance to talk about the possibility of a manuscript Amendment to introduce what we think is an important consideration. I agree with my hon. Friends that there are millions of pounds involved. Surely, this is sufficiently important for the Government to treat the matter seriously.

The Attorney-General: I did not hear the Nottingham speech, but I ought to remove any misconception there may be by saying that there is not, and never has been, any difference of opinion between the Minister and myself on this point. I also agree with him that there should not be any suggestion from our side of a manuscript Amendment. When I said what I did a short time ago, that there is ample power to fix a reserve price, I was referring to the opening words of subsection (7):
In performing their duties under this section the Commission shall consult the Board and act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Board …
One of the matters which may well be agreed between them is that there should be a reserve price, but if the matter is to be handled in a businesslike way it is much better to give people power to act in the ordinary way in which people do act when they are disposing of things. If they think it right and desirable to fix a reserve price they have power to do so. If, on the other hand, they think that there ought to be a reserve price and the Commission do not agree, or vice versa, and there is disagreement between them, then under subsection (8) the Minister can decide. That is why I said that there is ample power for them to deal with the matter. There is no disagreement whatever between my right hon. Friend and myself. It is very much better to give the Commission that power and let them exercise it.

Mr. H. Morrison: I really think we ought to have a statement from the Minister as well as from the Attorney-General. We are much obliged to the Attorney-General for the help he has given us, even if, in the process, he has got into something of a tangle with the Minister. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is not allowed to say anything, so he had better be quiet. The Minister is perfectly right to keep him quiet. I disagree with some of my hon. Friends who are anxious for the Parliamentary Secretary to speak. If he were my Parliamentary Secretary I think I should keep him quiet. I pay that restrictive compliment to the Minister.
The point is that this Bill is going to tear up by the roots a road haulage organisation that was in process of development, and one of the consequences

is that the Road Haulage Executive and the Commission are being financially damaged. There is provision for public money of some sort—whether it is the taxpayers' money, the Commission's money or money from the levy—to be brought in in order to compensate the Commission. Is it not better and more reasonable to see that there is a minimum or basic price below which it is not possible to go?
When we took over the private undertakings we provided a minimum basis of compensation. It was argued that it was not enough, but we thought it was right, just and fair, and we provided it. There was a reserve price. This is a transaction the other way round. This is a transfer from public to private ownership. Is it not right that the public interest should be protected on the same lines of principle as were the private interests?
When we took over those private interests the Opposition were vociferous in their demand that those private interests should not only be compensated but should be luxuriously compensated. We took a line which we thought to be fair and just in all the circumstances of the case; but there is no provision here for any minimum or reserve price, and it may be that public property will be disposed of at prices which are inadequate, unfair and unjust to the public authority.
We have not argued, either on the Measure of 1947 or on this Bill, that the public authority should be treated more generously than the private interests. I do not want to interfere with the Minister and the Attorney-General reconciling their differences; I am all in favour of it—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are cementing our alliance.

Mr. Morrison: I am in favour of their cementing their alliance. It means that things are being squared up. We are not claiming that the public interest should be treated differently from private interests, but that it should not be treated worse than private interests. If it was right in 1947 to guarantee to private owners a minimum and fair compensation surely it is right, when we are gambling not only with public property but the public interest, that there should be a reserve price.
The Attorney-General argues that the words contained in Clause 3 (7) really


meet in principle what we are seeking. The words are:
In performing their duties under this section, the Commission shall consult the Board and act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Board….
That gives a possibility of a reserve price, but we are not satisfied that it is adequate. First, the Commission must act with the approval of the Board, and the Government have been remarkably determined that there shall sit on the Board representatives of the vested interests who are to buy the property.
We do not trust the Board. We think it is wrong that the Board should be in a position superior to the Commission, which is a legitimate public authority, and that the Commission must act with the approval of the Board, when on the Board there sit the very representatives of the vested interests who are to buy the property. The Attorney-General has said there is a possibility of a reserve price, but on whom are we to rely to give this possible reserve price? We are to rely on a body which includes representatives of the interests concerned.
The Attorney-General's argument may be good theoretical law, but it is not good sense, and it is not likely. I therefore ask the Minister for a responsible pronouncement on these points. Why should we go to the trouble of providing a sum of money from some source to compensate the Commission partly, I do not say wholly, because we are not putting in a reserve price. Secondly, why is it not reasonable for provision for a reserve price of some sort to be put in the Bill? If it be the case that it is not competent for us to move a manuscript Amendment, and if it is competent for the Minister to do so—although I am bound to say I do not quite follow why the Government can do it when we cannot, but I am only anxious that the public interest be served—I would ask the Minister to consider doing it. If he will not do it, will he be good enough to inform the House why he thinks that it should not be done.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will gladly try to answer the right hon. Gentleman again. He asked me two questions and to suit the convenience of the House I will answer them—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Are we in Committee?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —with the leave of the House. I certainly do not wish to speak again. It is, in fact, the first time I have spoken on the Amendment to leave out "he" and insert "the purchaser," which the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know is the Amendment we are considering. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we have to compensate the Commission partly because there is no reserve price. That really puts ideas into people's minds which would be better not there. There is no question of the presence or absence of a reserve price affecting the sum which the Commission are to get.
The real difficulty that the Disposal Board and the Commission will find themselves in about the disposal of this property is that the goodwill is largely gone. If the Opposition think after all these years that they have no responsibility for the loss of that goodwill, and the fact that firms making, on their own estimation, £10 million annual profit, are now not bearing their full share of charges, they have a strange capacity for forgetting where the responsibility really lies. The difficulty of the Disposal Board in getting the best possible price will not be because there is no reserve price, if they decide not to have one, but because of the loss of goodwill.
The second question was, why did we not have a reserve price. The reason is that the Disposal Board will make their own arrangements for carrying out their statutory responsibility. If the Commission recommend that there should be a reserve price, and the Disposal Board rejects it, that is the sort of conflict that might come to me to be resolved.

Mr. H. Morrison: What will the right hon. Gentleman do?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly do not intend to make the elementary mistake of saying in advance what I am going to do in a certain set of circumstances when I do not know what the facts will be. I have been very polite throughout this discussion, and I hope I have not been offensive to any hon. Member, but may I say that it is because so many hon. Members opposite said in advance what they were going to do before they saw the facts of our economic situation that we are in our present difficulties.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Paget: (seated and covered): On a point of order. What are we dividing on? No Motion was moved that we do agree with the Lords.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question was proposed at the beginning, immediately it was read from the Table.

Mr. Paget: (seated and covered): With great respect, no Question has been proposed at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question was proposed immediately it was read from the Table. I myself proposed from the Chair the Question, "That this House

doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Paget: (seated and covered): But what Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In p. 6, line 19, to leave out "he," and to insert "the purchaser."

Mr. Callaghan: (seated and covered): With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that at the moment when you rose to put the Amendment, I interrupted in order to preserve our right to submit a manuscript Amendment to you. I was not aware that after that point you then in fact put it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I did.

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 238.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
1.00 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crouch, R. F.
Holt, A. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Horobin, I. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Deedes, W. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Arbuthnot, John
Digby, S. Wingfield
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Han. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Donner, P. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Doughty, C. J. A
Hurd, A. R.


Baldwin, A. E
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Barber, Anthony
Fell, A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Finlay, Graeme
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fisher, Nigel
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. 
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Kaberry, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fort, R.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lambton, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bowen, E. R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Godber, J. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T.


Braine, B. R.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Martin


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, H. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimond, J.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Longden, Gilbert


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Low, A. R. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullard, D.G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. F. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McAdden, S. J.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McCallum, Major D.


Campbell, Sir David
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Carr, Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Channon, H.
Hay, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maclean, Fitzroy


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Heath, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cole, Norman
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Cranborne, Viscount
Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major S. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Marples, A. E.




Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maude, Angus
Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maudling, R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Teeling, W.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Molson, A. H. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicholls, Harmar
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tilney, John


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Turton, R. H.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nutting, Anthony
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Odey, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Soames, Capt. C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Partridge, E.
Speir, R. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wellwood, W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, G.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pitman, I. J.
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Powell, J. Enoch
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)



Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Profumo, J. D.
Summers, G. S.
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Baird, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Janner, B.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bartley, P.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bence, C. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Beswick, F.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Glanville, James
Lewis, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burke, W. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McGhee, H. G.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grey, C. F.
McGovern, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mclnnes, J.


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Champion, A. J.
Hale, Leslie
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Collick, P. H.
Hannan, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Cove, W. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mason, Roy


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mellish, R. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holman, p.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Houghton, Douglas
Monslow, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hoy, J. H.
Moody, A. S.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morley, R.


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)




Moyle, A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mulley, F. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Boss, William
Thornton, E.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Royle, C.
Timmons, J.


O'Brien, T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tomney, F.


Oliver, G. H.
Short, E.W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Orbach, M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Oswald, T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdinglon)
Wallace, H. W.


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paget, R. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
West, D. G.


Pannell Charles
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Parker, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Pearson, A.
Snow, J. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Peart, T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wigg, George


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Porter, G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, F. T.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pryde, D. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wyatt, W. L.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Yates, V. F.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wilkins.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4—(TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT UNITS UNDER CONTROL OF COMMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 38. leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is really a drafting alteration in that subsection (1), which is taken out of Clause 4, is now to be incorporated as a new subsection (4) of Clause 24. If hon. Members will look at page 34 of the Bill, they will see a subsection (3); immediately after that, this subsection will be inserted.
The purpose of taking it out of its present position and re-inserting it with one very important difference is that we then make it clear that the words apply not only to the creation of companies that the Commission is to retain as Commission-owned companies, but also to the creation of companies to be set up for the purposes of disposal. The one important change to which I just referred is that the time limitation of six months goes—that is, the time in which companies have to be incorporated if they are to be retained. Several hon. Members opposed that time limitation, and we have taken it out.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are much obliged for the clear explanation which

has been given. We think that it is a reasonable Amendment, and the next, I gather, is really consequential on it. I advise my hon. Friends to agree to it forthwith.

Lords Amendment made: In page 7, line 8, leave out,
(whether incorporated under subsection (1) of this section or not).

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
Nearly two hours ago I moved a similar Motion, and the Leader of the House responded in not unfriendly terms, indicating that we might go a little further and, I thought from the tone of his voice, that he would then give the proposal sympathetic consideration. The next Amendment on the Paper, that concerned with the six-fifths and the five-fourths, raises a big issue and would take a considerable time in discussion. I wonder, therefore, if the Leader of the House does not agree that this would be a convenient moment to adjourn further consideration.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Crookshank: It is true that we have made some progress since the right hon. Gentleman moved a similar Motion an hour and three-quarters ago, but we have not made all that amount of


progress. We have still a good deal of ground to cover with these Lords Amendments, and on the whole I think I should advise the House that we should continue—again, to use the phrase which I used before and which I repeat, if I may—and "see how we get along."—[Interruption.] We have made some progress—I am not complaining of that; but I think that in all the circumstances of the case we might be expected to make a little more.

Mr. Morrison: The Leader of the House really cannot go on using my phrase about "Let us see how we get on." I accepted it before in the graceful spirit in which it was uttered, and I gracefully accepted it, but I cannot go on gracefully accepting it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong and is unwise in his judgment in resisting the Motion, but if it is to be resisted, about which I hope he will have second thoughts, we are in for quite a long debate on the next Amendment; and before we reach that Amendment I should have to advise my hon. Friends, if the Motion is resisted, to divide upon the Question.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman that Committees are meeting tomorrow morning? From the point of view of the good business of the House, is it not desirable that we should adjourn now and come back fresh to deal with the business in the morning?

Mr. W. Nally: I am sorry to stand between the House and its further business at this time of night. I must, however bitterly protest, as far as either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench is concerned, against the apparently acceptable procedures that are now taking place. When, at 1.15 in the morning, many people have already done a hard day's work, when many Members of the House are sitting on Committees tomorrow, and when Ministers and leading personalities on this side of the House will be engaged tomorrow morning in important public business, it seems to me quite intolerable that the House should assume it proper to be discussing whether it is right to proceed to discuss Amendments that affect the lives of large numbers of

my constituents and of constituents of every Member now sitting in the Chamber.
It is scandalous, in circumstances in which this House of Commons can determine from day to day, in accordance with the Standing Orders, what time it commences, that having commenced our day's business at 3.30 in the afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past two."]—I said 3.30 in terms of business, apart from Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about morning Committees?"] I am talking about the day's business of the House. We begin our day's work at 3.30 p.m.
The country, irrespective of what might be its interest in the Bill, is not impressed, when at least 100 of the people sitting here have important business to do in the morning, involving Parliamentary matters, by a ping-pong battle between the two Front Benches at 1.20 a.m. to decide whether to go on to discuss matters of vital importance.
My protest is this: at 11.40 a.m. a Minister, for whose policy I have no regard whatsoever although I like him as a personality, is meeting a deputation of senior local authorities, for whom I have some regard. He is meeting them at a fairly early hour. He has some work to do before he meets them. I have no intention of taking part in Divisions in this House today and have not done so since 11.40 p.m. yesterday. I protest against the circumstances, whereby 18 hon. Members, because they have missed their last trains, are going to be hanging about and sleeping in the most disgusting conditions. [Laughter.] This may strike hon. Members opposite as curious and funny.
All I know is that one of the most distinguished working-class Members of this House, whom I had the honour to live with and to know for many years, died last year. One of the reasons he died was the fact that he really believed these all-night Sittings were important and he would never go without a pair. At 3 a.m. today, there' will be at least a dozen or 18 Labour Members of Parliament in this House experiencing the circumstances I have mentioned, but not one hon. Member opposite will have to spend a night in these circumstances. I do not see anything funny about that.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I can get home. I live only a quarter of a mile from here.
If the right hon. Gentleman who is sneering so much, had not got a fairly large bank balance derived from his ancestors, he would not—[Interruption.] I object to the House discussing the Motion or this Bill which is before it.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hon. Member doing?"]—One of these days, the people of the country will realise that the House of Commons has great dignity and great powers, and that those of us, who are Members of it, count ourselves honoured, so to be. But, if we are to discuss, at 1.25 a.m., serious matters, then that is not only an insult to us as Members of the House of Commons, but it is an insult to those who send us here.

Mr. Proctor: I hope that the Government representatives will give earnest consideration to this matter. Some of us were here at 10.30 a.m. yesterday, which is 15 hours since we commenced our legislating duties in the House. We take a serious view of the work in front of us. I believe there is a possibility, through the Lords Amendments, of finding some way of mitigating the evils of this Bill so far as the workers in the transport industry are concerned. I see no hope whatever, if we are going to discuss this matter in the circumstances and in the humour we are bound to get at this time of the morning, after 15 hours of work, of making any impression upon the Government to be reasonable. I hope that the Government will respond and decide that we can adjourn now and take up our labours at a more favourable opportunity.

Mr. H. Hynd: At this time of the night, we come near to what might be called the point of no return. Unless the House adjourns pretty soon, we might just as well stop here for the rest of the night. If we do we obviously shall not discuss these Amendments in the proper manner. The Government would be well advised to consider that before deciding that we should stay here another hour or so. If the Government do not let those of us who can do so go home to get some sleep we may as well stay here well into Wednesday and get on with the job.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I was surprised when I heard the Leader of the House say we were not going to adjourn forthwith. I listened carefully to what he said two hours ago in his most courteous and friendly way. We all assumed that the Government were not intending to detain us for very long. A number of my hon. Friends had hoped they might be home by now. I thought it very reasonable of my right hon. Friend to wait for two hours before moving this Motion again.
But when he invited the Leader of the House to agree to adjourn all we got was a feeble answer that perhaps we had not gone far enough. I am afraid that that sort of thing may go on the whole night. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than frank with the House in this matter. It is no use getting up and talking smoothly and then keeping us here all this time. I ask him to think again about this matter to see if it will pay him to keep us here. He sees the temper of my hon. Friends. They are interested in this Bill and the Lords Amendments, and although they are very tired there are experts on the subject on this side of the House who will certainly wish to make known their point of view.
The right hon. Gentleman may even find that because it is this hour in the morning people tend to speak at greater length than they otherwise would do. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with them. It is often more difficult to speak precisely at 1.30 in the morning. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the amount of time which will be lost on account of prolixity of that kind. I urge him strongly, in the interests of his own popularity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, a Leader of the House, if he is to be successful must be popular with everyone. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was a very popular Leader of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter and let us adjourn now and come back refreshed to our labours.

Mr. Paget: Are we not to hear something more from the Leader of the House? He is a man who likes to do things the hard way. He gets himself and us, because we are the sufferers, into


one tangle after another. He will not realise that he is in a mess and has to ask for mercy. Instead he goes on. Let him observe what has happened. As he acknowledged, there has been no obstruction at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only quoting the right hon Gentleman.
1.30 a.m.
We have tried to deal with this business expeditiously so far, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider for a moment what it will be like if he gets us obstructing by his insistence that this matter be discussed at an hour when it is not reasonable to have reasonable discussion? There are about 64 Lords Amendments still to be considered and 40 others. If we were for a moment to consider obstructing, that would involve at least 45 hours in the Division Lobbies apart from anything else. Really, will not the right hon. Gentleman show a little sense? He will not get this Bill through by bull-dozing it. He will get it by courtesy of the Opposition. But let him ask for it, because on this occasion the Opposition have the whip hand. Let him treat us with courtesy, because he needs it.
I understand that one of the names of the right hon. Gentleman is "Comfort." Let him give us some comfort now and let him give his own supporters a little comfort, because they will get a little tired of being kept up here night after night by his ineptitude. I tell him again not to go on doing it the hard way because he really is up against something this time.

Mr. Mellish: I am not a betting man but I am willing on this occasion to bet that before the night is out the Leader of the House will lose his temper, as he invariably does on occasions of this kind, and the Opposition will get even madder with him because of it. If he were a good Leader of the House—and I have never thought that he was—he would know that the Amendment which we are coming to discuss now is one of fundamental importance and will take a considerable time if hon. Members on this side of the House want to be obstructive.
Surely the first principle that ought to be considered by this House and by the nation is whether or not there is an immediate urgency for the economy of

the country to have the Bill. If it could be shown, for example, that this Bill had to be the law of the country by, say, July, one could understand the way in which it has been dealt with. But one would have thought that the Leader of the House, consulting with the Minister of Transport—who, although he started out not knowing anything about transport has learned something about it since the introduction of the Bill—would have told him that this Amendment is important to us as an Opposition.
The correct thing would be to give us now the point made by my right hon. Friend, to enable us to talk about it calmly tomorrow and to co-operate with the other side of the House in trying to arrive at the conclusion of this Bill. But if he says, "No, you will talk about this Amendment now," quite apart from what my right hon. Friends will do, I am certain that there are many on this side of the House who will be determined to see to it that it is not we who suffer but the Leader of the House, who will ultimately lose his temper, as he invariably does.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The House is entitled to hear from the Leader of the House what are the intentions of the Government. On previous occasions when the Standing Order has been suspended and we have had a discussion of this kind, the Minister in charge of the Bill or the Leader of the House has generally told us that it is the intention of the Government to get to a certain point in the Bill or to sit until a certain hour. On this occasion we have had no information whatever from the right hon. Gentleman as to the intentions of the Government.
We knew that it was proposed to suspend the Standing Order. I thought that at 11.30 p.m., when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) quite politely asked the Leader of the House what his intentions were, we should carry on for perhaps an hour or two or perhaps deal with one or two more Lords Amendments. It is not treating hon. Members with respect to leave us in this complete uncertainty. Do the Government wish to keep us here until a certain hour or do they wish to make progress to a certain point? If we can have that information we can adjust ourselves accordingly.
We are trying to take a reasonable, sensible and intelligent interest in these Amendments. One must remember that this is the first opportunity that many hon. Members have had for considering the matter in detail. The Guillotine operated during the Committee stage and the Report stage. If we have an all-night Sitting there is one compensating advantage. At this hour there is almost nothing else for hon. Members to do but to listen to the debate and to take part in it. There are not the other attraction which obtain during the earlier part of the day in the Library and elsewhere. I note that we have now got to the point at which refreshments have to be brought in to enable the Ministers to continue their labours.
I ask the Leader of the House to tell us his intention. Then the House can adjust itself accordingly. Hon. Members can decide whether they want to assist the Government in getting to a certain point or whether they want to stop earlier. Before we divide I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the progress the Government want to make at this Sitting.

Mr. Crookshank: If I may speak again by leave of the House, and in view of the very courteous observations which have been made, not only by the right hon. Gentleman but by some of his supporters, the short answer which I would give to the various questions which have been addressed to me is that I did announce that there would be two days for consideration of the Lords Amendments to this Bill. Last Thursday I announced that and it was received without comment. Therefore, it is a question of balancing how much progress is made today or tomorrow. I should have thought, on the whole, that we should make some more progress now.
It is not entirely correct to say that at any given moment the Government always announces how far they are going, or exactly what time they propose to move the Adjournment of the House. It depends on the progress that has been made. I have admitted that we have made some progress, but one has only to look at the Order Paper to see that there is a great deal more of the road to travel. In the present circumstances

I think that we might make some more progress tonight. That is really what I said before but, as the right hon. Gentlemen were good enough to ask me to say something, I have merely repeated, in other words, my previous remarks.

Mr. H. Morrison: I can speak again only by leave of the House. We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "For what?"] I hope my hon. Friends will wait and let me finish. I was about to add that the speech to which we have just listened is the same as that which we heard 20 minutes ago. There is really nothing in it.
As the Leader of the House has said, let us see how we go and let us make some further progress; but surely he should give us some idea how far he expects to go? We have a right to know. After the first intervention suggesting that we should adjourn our consideration, I made a guess. Many of my hon. Friends had asked me how long I thought we would go. I said that I did not know any more than they did; the Government had not told me; I was not in their confidence. They said, "What do you think?" and I said, "Just from the atmosphere of things"—I thought the Leader of the House was rather nice and that we had done a good amount of work—"I will make a guess at what the Leader of the House has in mind. I think it will be about 1 a.m." We all thought so and I believe he thought so. The atmosphere, however, livened up at about a quarter to one. That was nobody's fault, but if did not help matters. Now we are going backwards.
The Leader of the House keeps on saying that he announced last Thursday that Tuesday and Wednesday of this week were to be devoted to consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. That is perfectly true. I have no objection to his announcing that. He makes up the programme of Government business and he has a perfect right to say that he is giving two days this week for that purpose. But it is completely wrong for him to argue—as he has done—that because I, as acting Leader of the Opposition, did not say anything lost Thursday I agreed that two days this week would do, and that was the end of it.
The Government have their job to do, and they gave two days for this business this week, but we did not give two days and we did not agree to it. We made no comment. We knew we had our job to do and we are doing it now and, whether it takes two, three or four days, we must do our job. I am not threatening anything; I am merely saying that we must do our job. The Leader of the House must get out of his head the thought that, because he stands at that Box on Thursday and announces that two days next week will be devoted to Lords Amendments, he has therefore laid it down that it is to be finished in two days. That is giving him the power of a Guillotine of his own.
1.45 a.m.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stop using this kind of argument. He is getting into the habit of assuming that what he says on Thursday is the end of the thing. This is after all a free Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to say there are to be two days devoted to this business, but he has no right to assume by that that he is going to get his business through in those two days. He had better be thinking out, between today and tomorrow, how many days he is going to give next week to the Transport Bill.
There are important Amendments, and we were rushed on the Committee and Report stages by the Guillotine. We have a right to give them proper consideration and, if he bases his argument on the fact that what he said on Thursday should settle it, I would say that he seems to take too much on himself as Leader of the House. I have no reason to underestimate the importance of the Leader of the House. After all I had a vested interest in the position myself. I would ask him whether we should not now adjourn. Otherwise we must go on to Amendments which are complex, and which will require a substantial time to deal with.

Mr. George Thomas: The acting Leader of the Opposition has made a reasonable appeal to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, when he came to the Dispatch Box, had nothing new to add to what he had said earlier, as I am quite sure he will agree. It is the right hon. Gentleman's character that when he looks benevolent, we may

be quite sure that he is going to be unreasonable. The arguments put forward from this side of the House are substantial. One of my hon. Friends reminds me that the prolonging of this discussion tonight is one of the best arguments for a Parliament for Wales.
The general public all believe we are a lot of silly people to behave as we are doing tonight, and there are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman where he should be at the present moment. It is not for me to tell him. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he is taking exception to is that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to talk on this Bill, but they desire to do their duty by the House and the country. It is not unreasonable to ask that a Measure of this character shall be properly debated, and it is surely unreasonable and a little discourteous to another place that we should discuss their Amendments at this time in the morning.
We expect from the Leader of the House more interest in the Amendments which come from another place, when they are Amendments of a substantial character, as these are. There is a vast sum of public money involved in the Lords Amendments which are before the House tonight, and it is unreasonable for people to be told in the course of today that while Members were finding it hard to keep awake, and while hon. Members on the other side were talking, the Government had pushed these Amendments through. If the Leader of the House is co-operative now it will, I am sure, be much easier for him to get his way tomorrow. I am in no position to promise on other people's behalf anything to anyone at any time, but I can promise him that I would be co-operative if he would only play the game at this moment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Leader of the House has not made any attempt to reply to the very weighty, convincing and reasonable case put up by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). My right hon. Friend pointed out that there is an important Scottish Measure to be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee today—a very complex Measure dealing with hospital endowments for Scotland, concerning important and abstruse local matters ranging from John-o-Groat's to


Dumfrieshire. I gather from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—

Mr. G. Thomas: Not gallant.

Mr. Hughes: I wanted to bring some atmosphere of reasonableness into the debate, and I intended that to be complimentary, but my hon. and learned Friend repudiates that.

Mr. Thomas: Not learned either.

Mr. Hughes: I can only draw this matter to the attention of his constituents, to see if they care about it.
The effect it will have upon Wales to realise that we are devoting this time, at 1.50 a.m., to discussing this elaborate procedure, is nothing to the consternation that will be caused when this is discussed in Scotland. Although there is a comparatively small movement in Wales which is demanding reconsideration of the procedure of this House, it is nothing compared with the demand that there should be devolution for Scotland so that matters appertaining to hospital endowments in Scotland can be properly discussed by hon. Members who are in full possession of their faculties.
There is another and far more weighty consideration which has been in my mind during the progress of this debate. I am

wondering whether this debate will be concluded before the Coronation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke of the awful prospect of 45 Sittings of the House and the possibility of 45 all-night Sittings before the Coronation. I want to see the Government Front Bench fit and in good condition to make an impression upon the British public as they appear in the Coronation procession.

I have watched with a great deal of perturbation and anxiety the wilting away of the Leader of the House. If this goes on I can imagine that we shall have the Leader of the House in the Coronation procession borne upon a stretcher, or perhaps in an ambulance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Prime Minister?"] I do not wish to drag the Prime Minister in at this stage, but I shudder to think what would happen to the Coronation if the Prime Minister were not able to take part in the procession. I submit that these further weighty considerations should be carefully considered by the Leader of the House and that he should adjourn the proceedings forthwith.

Question put, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 237: Noes, 254.

Division No. 133]
AYES
[1.55 a.m.


Adams, Richard
Coldrick, W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Albu, A. H.
Collick, P. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Glanville, James


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cove, W. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crosland, C. A. R.
Grey, C. F.


Baird, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bartley, P.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bones, C. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hale, Leslie


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Benson, G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Beswick, F.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Blenkinsep, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Boardman, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowden, H. W.
Edelman, M.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hoy, J. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Follick, M.
Irving, W. J (Wood Green)


Carmichael, J.
Foot, M. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Forman, J. C.
Janner, B.


Champion, A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Chapman, W. D.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)




Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oswald, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Padley, W. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paget, R. T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles
Sylvester, G. O.


Keenan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parker, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Porter, G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Timmons, J.


MacColl, J. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Tomney, F.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McGovern, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Usborne, H. C.


McInnes, J.
Rankin, John
Wallace, H. W.


McLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Weitzman, D.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rhodes, H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
West, D. G.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wigg, George


Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Willey, F. T.


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morley, R.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Moyle, A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mulley, F. W.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sorensen, R. W.
Yates, V. F.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


O'Brien, T.
Sparks, J. A.



Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orbach, M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock)


Alport, C. J. M.
Carr, Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Channon, H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godber, J. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gower, H. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cole, Norman
Graham, Sir Fergus


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Colegate, W. A.
Grimond, J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Banks, Col. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Barber, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount
Harden, J. R. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hay, John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Birch, Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heath, Edward


Bishop, F. P.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Black, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Holt, A. F.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hope, Lord John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Homsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fort, R.
Horobin, I. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Foster, John
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)







Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hutehinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hyde Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spence, H, R (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stevens, G. P.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kerr, H. W.
Nutting, Anthony
Storey, S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Oakshott, H. D
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lambton, Viscount
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lancaster, Col C. G.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Summers, G. S.


Langford-Holt, J. A
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Teeling, W.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Partridge, E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lindsay, Martin
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Linstead, H. N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tilney, John


Low, A. R. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Turton, R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McAdden, S. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McCallum, Major D.
Profumo, J. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Renton, D. L. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Wellwood, W.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Markham, Major S. F.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G.


Harpies, A. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maude, Angus
Shepherd, William



Maudling, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.


Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 26, leave out "six-fifths" and to insert "five-fourths."

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning, to insert:
the vehicles included in the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division plus vehicles put into service to replace horse-drawn vehicles plus.
I very much regret that we now come to discuss a highly complex, technical Amendment, which involves a great number of figures, at this hour of the morning. It will be difficult for hon. Members at this hour to give full attention to this very important matter of the number of vehicles which the Commission can retain. I think it will be agreed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I should be in order if I discussed at the same time the next Amendment, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and others, to leave out "five-fourths" and to add "seven-fourths."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes.

Mr. Davies: During the Committee stage the Government agreed that the Commission should be allowed to retain more vehicles than they had originally included in the Bill. I think it would help the House if I gave some brief history of the manner in which the position of the Commission was dealt with, and what was decided upon from the introduction of the White Paper up to the present time.
The House will recall that when the White Paper on policy was laid before us, no provision whatever was made for the Transport Commission to retain any vehicles for the purposes of road haulage hire and reward. Thanks, however, to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), supported by others, the Minister, when introducing his first Bill, provided that the Commission should be able to retain the same number of vehicles as had been taken over by the


Commission from the railway companies when they were nationalised on 1st January, 1948. That is to say, the Commission was to be able to retain the same number of vehicles as it first acquired on the vesting date.
During our subsequent discussions, however, there was strong pressure from this side of the House concerning in particular the failure to include in the Bill any provision for the replacement of the horse-drawn vehicles which were taken over with the motor vehicles. It was then decided to increase by 20 per cent. the number of vehicles which could be retained by the Commission. That is to say, the Commission was to retain the number taken over on 1st January, 1948, plus 20 per cent. There was further discussion as the Bill went through, and this figure is now finally to be raised to 25 per cent.
The figures are confusing. The present figure in the Bill which is now before us is six-fifths, and in the other place an Amendment was moved and accepted which increases it to five-fourths. My mathematics are not very good, but I am told that five-fourths is more than six-fifths. There appears to be no dissension about that. Although there has been this further concession made in the other place, I maintain the number of vehicles which the Commission is to retain is inadequate, and that the latest increase, which amounts, in effect, to only 200 more vehicles, is a mean and pettifogging increase. The number of vehicles which the Commission is able to retain on the present basis, if the Lords Amendment is accepted, is 4,875. We suggest that figure should be increased to seven-fourths, which would be 6,825, an increase of 2,050.
There are four main reasons why we consider the figure suggested by the Government is inadequate. First, it does not provide sufficiently for the natural growth which has taken place, and which would have continued had the Commission not been interfered with. Second, there is inadequate provision for the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles. Third, there is inadequate provision for the substitution of road haulage vehicles where branch lines close down. Fourth, the number of vehicles which the Commission will be left with will be inadequate to enable it to maintain any of

these national, essential services which it is now running or, for that matter, to compete fairly and justly with private enterprise, something which the Minister has, on many occasions in this House, suggested that the Commission should and would be able to do with the number of vehicles with which it was being left.
As to natural growth, the Minister has argued, in Committee and on the Report stage, that this increase of 20 per cent., and now 25 per cent., above 1948, does allow for the natural increase in road haulage vehicles operated by the railways and the companies in which the railways were previously interested. I would point out that over the five years the Commission has been operating, this represents an increase of only four per cent. per annum, whereas before the war Pickfords alone, which was wholly-owned by the railway companies, was increasing its number of vehicles at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum, or five times as much as this natural growth was admitted to be by the Minister.
Clearly, there would have been, in the post-war years, a very substantial increase in the amount of road haulage operated by the railways, with the improvements in the technical operation of the railways in conjunction with road haulage and in the type of vehicles, their capacity, and the general growth in integration and co-ordination. It was a development which was taking place rapidly before the war and it would have taken place more rapidly after the war. To consider 20 per cent. in five years adequate to cover the natural growth is ridiculous. It means that the Commission is in a worse position than it was in 1948.
As to the question of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles, the Commission took over, with the road haulage companies which the railways owned, some 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles. Of these, I believe that about 2,800 have been replaced by motor vehicles, leaving only 200 horse-drawn vehicles. Because these were horse-drawn vehicles on 1st January, 1948, they do not count as vehicles which the Commission is allowed to retain. They are ignored, and the equivalent which has been allowed for, this 5 per cent., is equal to only 200 vehicles. That means that 200 horse-drawn vehicles which the Com-


mission still retains can be replaced by motor vehicles, but 2,800 which they previously took over will be completely ignored.
2.15 a.m.
During the Committee stage, on 9th December, the Minister stated that
the allowance of six-fifths can fairly take account of any road haulage facilities that have been provided. In new cases of the closing of branch lines, it will be open to the Commission in this as in other fields, to go to the licensing authority in the ordinary way. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 331.]
It is no use being able to go to the licensing authority to obtain licences to operate road haulage vehicles if the branch lines have been closed down. The Commission must be in a position to know that it will obtain the licences or will have the right to operate vehicles to meet the demand for the carriage of goods over the same distances. There must be provision for the replacement of the rail traffic by road traffic.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is possible that the Commission might not want to run a substitute service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. The Commission have a statutory duty to make ends meet and it may not want to provide alternative facilities which some local bus company may be able to provide. I agree that the probability is that the Commission would, and as I have repeatedly said, the fact that it closed down these branch lines in the interests of economy would give it a strong presumptive right to be granted licences.

Mr. Davies: I think that the Minister is under a misapprehension. I am sure he does not consider that a local bus service would run road haulage.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I meant a road haulage service.

Mr. Davies: If the Minister admits that the provisions of this Bill do not make it easy for the Commission to operate road haulage to meet the traffic lost by the closing down of the branch lines, he is putting obstacles in the way of closing down the lines. Nobody can envisage the Commission closing down a branch line, knowing that it will lose the traffic to a private enterprise competitor. The Minister himself admits that the Commission is not being allowed sufficient vehicles to carry on its own business.
Apart from these reasons, the argument has been advanced that because the Commission is able to retain 4,875 vehicles with an unladen capacity of 17,200 tons it will be able to compete with private enterprise. But the tendency has been for the size of vehicles to increase. That limit would mean only 3½ tons per vehicle, which would be a small-size vehicle for heavy haulage or long-distance trunking.
If the Commission decided under the Bill as it stands to replace its smaller vehicles with larger ones, it would mean that it would have to reduce the number of vehicles which it was operating. In fact, if it decided to operate vehicles of 4 tons, it would only have about 4,000 vehicles instead of nearly 5,000, and if all its vehicles were 8 tons unladen capacity, it would be allowed to operate only 2,000 vehicles. How, with that small number of vehicles can the Commission compete, as the Minister suggests it can and wishes it to do, with private enterprise?
The Commission at the present time carries on a large number of different services. It has its Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, with which I shall be dealing in a few moments. It has its trunking and tramping services, and it has its parcels and smalls services, as well as some miscellaneous ones. In the case of the 750 trunk services which are operated as a national network throughout the country, it employs 6,500 vehicles at the present time. In the parcels and smalls service, which serves 13,000 different places, and carries 250,000 consignments a day, it employs about 3,500 vehicles. The Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division employs just over 3,000 vehicles, making a total of 13,000 vehicles with an unladen tonnage of 47,000 tons.
If the Commission requires 13,000 vehicles to carry on those essential services and is to be allowed only just under 5,000 vehicles, it means that not one of those services can continue to carry on; that each one of those—whether Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, the parcels and smalls or the national network of trunk services—will have to be broken up and dissipated, and a worse service will be provided to the users of transport in the country. In fact, in fixing the number of vehicles at so low a figure, the Minister has ignored com-


pletely their point of view, and has considered only the view of those who want to come back into the road haulage industry, who have so frequently been referred to in this House as the friends of the Government.
To deal with that part of our Amendment which concerns Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, we suggest that the Government should exclude that Division from the number of vehicles which the Commission is allowed to retain; that is to say, it should be allowed to retain the 4,000-odd vehicles which we wish to increase to 6,825, and the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division as well. We suggest that for the reason that since nationalisation the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division has been built up from the nucleus of the fleet which was taken over with the railway companies. With its present fleet of 3,091 vehicles it operates a profitable business. It has brought a considerable surplus into the coffers of the Road Haulage Executive, and thereby to the Transport Commission.
This Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division does not enjoy a monopoly. Both here and in the other place Ministers have misled hon. Members by suggesting that Pickfords has a monopoly and that it is to break up that monopoly that the Government are taking this action to restrict the number of vehicles which it can operate. But Pickfords operate a heavy haulage business carrying indivisible loads. The number of vehicles they so operate is only 426. There is considerable competition in the heavy haulage industry. Since the Commission took over in 1948 business in heavy haulage has substantially increased because of the very large amount of development in the electricity industry and the great amount of machinery and equipment which is too large to go by rail and has to be carried in indivisible loads by road.
If this Lords Amendment is carried, however, then for heavy haulage Pickfords will be allowed to retain only 210 vehicles.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he give any figures showing the number of heavy vehicles added to Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division which have

been taken from long-distance road hauliers whose businesses were nationalised?

Mr. Davies: I can give the number of vehicles taken over by the Commission. It was 164, and they are now operating 426. That was one of the advantages—

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question.

Mr. Davies: That was one of the advantages of nationalisation. There were these large number of firms with a few heavy vehicles. They were consolidated into the Pickfords Group for the purpose of carrying the specialised traffic on a national basis. That has proved very profitable indeed and provided considerable economy and a better and cheaper service for the transport user.
The second part of Pickfords special traffic is that of tankers, removals, the carriage of liquid in bulk, and so on. Nobody would suggest that Pickfords has a monopoly in removals. Everyone knows that many of the large furniture firms, the large department stores, and so on, operate removal vans. In the removal business Pickfords is a strong competitor and has no advantage over its competitors.
The other part of the business is that of ordinary load carriers—that is, general haulage of a special type. There is no monopoly because the type of traffic which Pickfords carry is that which was excluded from the 1947 Act. The excluded traffics were indivisible loads, the carriage of liquid in bulk, removals and similar types of specialised traffic. In all of these Pickfords operate, and there are private operators in competition. In spite of that Pickfords has been able to operate profitably and has shown that where there is competition between public and private enterprise public enterprise can in this case succeed.
Because it has succeeded, and because its disappearance would be required if the Bill goes through in its present form, even with the Lords Amendment we are now considering, I ask, why should Pickfords be broken up? I cannot see any justification whatever for causing the disappearance of this very successful section of the Road Haulage Executive.
The Minister has suggested that there should be competition between public and private enterprise and that one of


the purposes of the Bill is to increase competition in the road haulage business. Here is successful competition in existence. Is that the reason why the Minister wants it to come to an end? Is that why he wants to break up, to disintegrate and disrupt the Pickfords service—because it has proved too successful in its competition with private enterprise? I suggest that the Minister should give serious consideration to the question whether the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division should not be excluded from the vehicles to which the Commission is limited under the present arrangements.
2.30 a.m.
I have tried to put before the House some of the reasons why we have put these two Amendments on the Order Paper. They do not go nearly far enough. All we have done is to try to salvage a little more for the Commission, in order to meet the natural growth of traffic and vehicles which has taken place since the Commission came into operation; to replace the horse-drawn vehicles, for which no allowance is made except this miserable increase of 5 per cent.; to make better provision for road haulage in the case of the closing down of branch lines, and to keep in existence the most profitable and successful section of the road haulage industry.
Even if the Minister cannot agree to increase the number of vehicles to seven-fourths he should at least exclude the vehicles of the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division. Even if the number of vehicles is increased from five-fourths to seven-fourths there will still be strong competition between the Road Haulage Executive and private enterprise, because there will be only about 6,800 vehicles in the hands of the Commission which are engaged in road haulage, as against some 84,000 or more vehicles with A licences.
In those circumstances the Minister can surely be assured that private enterprise will have a fair chance to compete. But if, as he suggests, the figure is to be limited to 4,875 vehicles, the Commission will not be able to compete on a fair basis, because it will have to disrupt each of its existing services. Not one of its services will be able to maintain a national network, and it will, therefore, be unable to operate as economically and efficiently as it now does.

Mr. Woodburn: The questions raised here deal first with Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, and, secondly, the number of vehicles that will be allowed to the Commission for the carrying on of business. This raises the further question of how far the Commission will be able to carry on services which may not be carried on at all if they are left purely to private enterprise. Everyone recognises that it would be quite unreasonable to expect private enterprise to run services in areas where profits cannot be made. Nobody expects it to do so; that is the duty of the public service, and it must always be so. There are great areas in Scotland where it is quite impossible to guarantee that any profit can be made if a private service is run, and that applies to rural areas in other parts of the country.
It therefore follows that if the matter is to be left entirely to private enterprise the first result will be that the service will be reduced to an extent which will enable it to make ends meet, in which case the rural areas will be more isolated than they are today and, instead of people being encouraged to live there and to populate areas that must be populated in the Highlands, they will drift more and more to the towns, where they can have the facilities of transport. The second result will be that where that transport continues to run the fares will be increased to such an extent as to handicap what remains of rural life.
One of the problems of getting small industries into the rural areas and into isolated places is that of providing transport at reasonable rates to take their goods to the big cities and the markets. The road transport authority in Scotland was already in a position to provide what was almost a flat rate—to give people sending goods 40 miles in the Highlands the same rates as those sending goods the 40 miles from Edinburgh to Glasgow. That is a tremendous advantage to people living in the isolated areas, and it was to be made possible simply because the great bulk of traffic in the big areas made it possible for the authority to bear the cost of the traffic in the isolated areas without difficulty.
The Minister has admitted the special transport needs of Scotland. The general conclusion come to by everyone in Scotland who has examined this matter is that


the road services in Scotland cannot be left to chance. If these vehicles are suddenly put on the market and sold to private enterprise, that is largely leaving it to chance. There is no guarantee that these vehicles will not be sold to people who will operate them outside Scotland, and certainly outside the rural and isolated areas.
No explanation has yet been given by the Minister, and I have almost wearied myself raising this matter in the House, as to how, under the Bill, the services for these areas are to be maintained. I hope that in the course of his reply the right hon. Gentleman will give some idea how the Bill will work with regard to maintaining or providing services in these very difficult areas, of which Scotland has perhaps more than its share.
Is the Commission to have any responsibility for providing the services? The Minister told us a few minutes ago that it was the duty of the Commission to make ends meet. Therefore it would be quite unreasonable to say to the Commission that it must take all the uneconomic services, and that the economic services can be taken by the private road hauliers. That would be contrary to the duty of the Commission, and I am sure the Minister would not enforce such a position on it. If the Commission is to have any duty at all to provide services in Scotland, it must clearly have a unit that can provide some sort of balance. It must, therefore, be run as a public service. If the Commission is to have such a duty, it must have enough vehicles left to it to do that job.
If the vehicles are to be spread all over Britain, or even if a large number of them are to be taken from the nucleus of the Commission's vehicles to keep the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division alive, the very fact that the Pickfords Division is to be kept to any reasonable strength means that the Commission will have no vehicles for any other road transport purpose. Scotland and other rural areas will have all their transport taken away to the profitable areas, and the Commission, trying to make ends meet, will have to concentrate its transport on the Pickfords Division to show a vast profit.
There seems to be an argument for leaving the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division entirely outside the calculation

of the five-fourths. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully in order to leave the Commission enough vehicles to carry on some of these public services. I happened to make a journey during the Easter Recess, and I was astonished to find the number of Pick-ford vehicles built specially for carrying Army tanks on the roads. I do not know whether the Minister has inquired about the number of vehicles run by Pickfords for purely Government and Service purposes. This is not really road transport at all in the normal commercial sense.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Although it would not be true of all vehicles, a number were actually acquired from other undertakings and have now been repainted with the very effective sign of the "Special Traffic (Pickfords) Division." Pickfords is not the Pickfords that we used to know, as I shall explain later on.

Mr. Woodburn: The point I am making is that these vehicles seem to be specially built for carrying Centurion tanks. The manufacture of Centurion tanks and their delivery all over the country is not a matter for normal commerce; it is a matter for the Army authorities to transport their tanks, and even to get their tanks from commercial firms. If the Army are using such vehicles to transport tanks, and are using Pickfords, it seems to me wrong to bring those vehicles into a calculation in discussions on handing over road transport to private enterprise. These vehicles should be taken out of that calculation altogether.
The other point I wish to raise concerns the question of horse-drawn vehicles. In Scotland there were three firms which ran collection and delivery services very largely in conjunction with the railways. These three firms ran collection and delivery services and served the railways almost like a monopoly. Two of these firms were not owned by the railways. They were naturally taken over by the Commission afterwards, and at the time they were taken over the transport was largely horse-drawn vehicles. But the Commission have changed over to motor vehicles. It seems that if the proportion of vehicles to be retained remains as at present proposed it will not be sufficient to provide in Scotland even the vehicles that were required before the Bill to run the collection and delivery of railway traffic.
This will be a tragedy from another point of view. As I explained in earlier speeches, the road transport authority plus the railways have built up a very interesting collection and delivery service of a co-ordinated kind that was not possible under private enterprise with a number of different firms. The Minister seemed to show some sympathy when I explained this first, especially in the case of centres like Leith Central Station and Glasgow, where these services had been built up most effectively and were operating with great success.
While the right hon. Gentleman showed some sympathy in his earlier reply, I have since been unable to discover whether there is to be any continuation of these services, even the central depôts. Even supposing private enterprise were doing the job, is there to be a continuation of these centralised exchange depots in order to avoid the overlapping and duplication that takes place when these depots do not exist? Leith Central Station is a great building at one of the most important centres of the dock area of Leith, and it has been almost entirely transformed into a suitable depot, with a loading bank and other facilities for such traffic.
I should like the Minister to say what will happen to these depots if, by the rejection of our Amendment, the services are to be reduced? Are they to be entirely scrapped? Is the collection and delivery service to be lost? Is there to be a reversion to the rather haphazard system which existed before the war? Are the railways to be able to acquire sufficient vehicles to replace the service that was previously performed by these private enterprise firms with horse-drawn vehicles? It is quite definite that the number of vehicles permitted to the railways would certainly not be able to perform the delivery and collection service.
All I am at the moment anxious about is to be satisfied that so far as transport arrangements are concerned when the Bill comes into force there will not be a complete dislocation, and that great stretches of Scotland will not be left without a proper service. So far as I know no one is satisfied in Scotland about the likely service. We may be mistaken because the Minister has promised to set up a centralised authority to co-ordinate some parts of transport, but it seems defective

as it is not to co-ordinate road transport. Is it to be capable of seeing that there are enough vehicles to do the job in Scotland and to see that outlying rural areas are not deprived of a service without which their life will be further depleted, and the prospect of rehabilitation of our country set back many years?

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Deputy-Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must first thank hon. Members for the warmth of their welcome, and perhaps also acknowledge the appreciative references made earlier in the evening to some remarks which I made at Nottingham last week.
The topic before us in this Amendment has been the subject of a great deal of discussion during the earlier stages of the Bill. If I may refresh the memories of hon. Members, they will recall that the six-fifths ratio was put in to allow for what we called natural growth of these services. The debate which took place then impressed us considerably with the desirability of some increase. If I may say so to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), no one made a greater impact upon us than did he by the representations he made on that occasion. That was why, in another place, my right hon. Friend thought it was a good thing to increase this ratio to five-fourths, a substantial increase in the overall limit of tonnage to be made over to companies under the control of the B.T.C. by making this increase to them.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman really wish to adhere to the word "substantial"?

Mr. Braithwaite: If I did not think the word "substantial" appropriate I should not have uttered it. This is not the More-cambe Conference, where words are withdrawn on their utterance; it has been carefully worked out.

Mr. Lindgren: No wonder the Minister would not allow the hon. Gentleman to speak before.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether even at this time in the morning reference to the More-cambe Conference is in order?

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not think anyone went to the length of saying that the Morecambe Conference was in order.

Mr. Paget: Are we to have a Ruling Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything which was out of order. He said this was not the Morecambe Conference: it certainly is not.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that we can discuss the Morecambe Conference and the Conservative Conference, which are wide and interesting subjects?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no doubt that they are, but it would not be in order to discuss them.

Mr. Braithwaite: I was asked whether I adhered to the word "substantial." Of course I do, and I carefully considered it before using that phrase. I think an increase from six-fifths to five-fourths can be not unreasonably described as substantial.

Mr. Beswick: Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the arithmetic of this? My hon. Friend has given the pre-war average increase of the old railway companies and the road transport vehicles, and the annual increase under the Transport Commission. Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how he relates the six-fifths or the later five-fourths to the previous annual increase?

Mr. Braithwaite: I hope I shall not provoke anybody if I say that I think it is a little early for that sort of interruption. What I am trying to do at the moment is to justify the word "substantial." The Opposition are endeavouring to do still better for the Commission. We are now dealing with the Special Traffics Division; and the Amendment which would have raised the ratio to seven-fourths was not selected, although an oblique reference has been made to it. It comes into the general picture, but may I say that the five-fourths' ratio was intended, for good or for ill, to deal with the problem of the horse-drawn vehicles and that concerned with the necessity for a proper service for Scotland. The change of six-fifths to five-fourths, I think, represents a substantial increase.
On the basis of information supplied by the Commission, and quoted by the Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill, the additional allowances for Pickfords alone would have meant 14,700 tons unladen weight, and would have

brought the total tonnage which the Commission could make over under this Clause to 235 per cent. of the tonnage owned by the former railway and canal companies. I do not think this is a party point; I do not think it is controversial, but it is very difficult to compute, however benevolent one's intentions, just what the allowances for the former horse-vehicles should be; to what they should amount. I do not think they could be accurately assessed, for there are a great many uncertain factors.
There is the difference in the radius of operation of a horse-drawn vehicle and its motor substitute, and there is also another matter. I put it to the right hon. Member for East Stirling that one of the factors difficult of assessment is the radius of operation to which I have just referred, and the other is the extent to which horse-drawn vehicles were given up and not replaced at all. The House should then remember there is another factor.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggesting that 200 motor vehicles can do the same amount of work as the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles taken over, and provide the special service to Scotland to which he has referred? He is allowing the Commission 200 extra motor vehicles. Does he say that they can do the same work and the extra service as well?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, of course. That is the case I am endeavouring to make.

Mr. Davies: It is a hopeless case.

Mr. Braithwaite: I now have some figures, which were not in my possession when I rose to reply originally, which bear on this matter not inconsiderably. The pre-nationalisation tonnage was 13,700—that is, railway-controlled vehicles. The six-fifths ratio would make that into 16,500—

Mr. Davies: Unladen weight?

Mr. Braithwaite: Unladen weight—and five-fourths brings it up to 17,200, which is an increase—I am doing the calculation rapidly but I think I am right—of 3,500 as compared with the pre-nationalisation figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Woodburn: I do not want to be ungracious and not to acknowledge that the Government made some attempt to meet my point. Can the hon. Gentleman


clear up this point? Presumably some of these vehicles are being given to meet the peculiar situation in Scotland, where there were so many horse-drawn vehicles. If the vehicles are all handed over to the Commission, do they get the vehicles that they were previously to get plus X vehicles that they are to get for the horse-drawn vehicles that we discussed? Is there any guarantee, however, that the Commission will not use all these vehicles outwith Scotland and not use any of them for the service in Scotland?

Mr. Alfred Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary appears to want an adjournment while he settles the matter with his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, who put to me a point of considerable substance. I was trying to assure myself, through my right hon. Friend, that I was giving the correct reply rather than give one hurriedly which might not be accurate. On these occasions, whatever the hour, one ought to do these things thoroughly.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman should know his subject before he comes to the Box.

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not think that the right hon. Member was invariably perfect when dealing with any question that was put to him at any hour on these various matters. My chief recollection of his inaccuracy was his forecast that there would be a million unemployed before last Christmas.

Mr. Robens: Did you guarantee that there would not be?

Mr. Braithwaite: I certainly guarantee that there will not be by next Christmas.

Mr. Robens: Or before you go out of office? Do you guaranteee that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not guarantee anything.

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps I may now reply to the intervention of the right hon. Member for East Stirling. It would be the duty of the Disposal Board to see that that does not happen.

Mr. Robens: What, the million unemployed?

Mr. Braithwaite: The right hon. Member must contain himself. I am trying to deal with a serious point on the duty of the Disposal Board to look after this matter.
I now return to the main issue which we are discussing. The House should remember that a substantial part, although by no means the whole, of the tonnage operated by the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division, as it is called, represents tonnage previously owned by the former railway-controlled company, which was then called Pickfords.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: Let me finish. I will give way with pleasure if the hon. Member disagrees with the point I am making. This Amendment, if accepted, would therefore mean the duplication of this tonnage in calculating the overall limit.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to know under which provision of the Bill the Disposal Board will have the authority to prevent any particular unit being sold in order not to denude Scotland? As I see it, the only power they have is under Clause 3 (7). Is the hon. Member on a good point here?

Mr. Braithwaite: It is the duty of the Board, and I think we have said this often enough, to see that the general disposal of vehicles is done on a geographical basis. It has been made clear during our discussions that they must not denude Scotland or anywhere else of a reasonable service.
I must get back to the point put by the right hon. Member for East Stirling because this Amendment to the Lords Amendment is on the question of the ratio.

Mr. Popplewell: I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary has made a very important statement, in which we are extremely interested. He has mentioned that the disposal would be on a geographical basis. Would he say under what terms and what provision of the Bill this comes? This is an extremely interesting point to Scotland and Yorkshire and Northumberland, where there are vast tracts of country.

Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps, in endeavouring to answer the point, I put it


crudely or badly. The Disposal Board has on it a representative of the Commission, whose duty it is to try and see these things, which have been foreshadowed, do not happen.

Mr. Callaghan: Obviously, there is something here which the Parliamentary Secretary is cognisant of, but which we are not. The only condition I know which exists in the Bill about the duties of the Disposal Board which is remotely concerned with this, is that the Board shall not give their approval to the acceptance of a tender unless they are satisfied the price is a reasonable one and that where any difference arises between the Commission and the Board, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Minister shall give his direction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At my hon. Friend's own suggestion, I rise to make this matter abundantly plain. My hon. Friend had in mind, quite rightly, that it will be the task of the Commission and the Disposal Board to divide up the units in a manner that will sell. Naturally, they are anxious these units shall sell. As I explained, it was not possible to arrange for geographical sales, either in Scotland or anywhere else.
We have every reason to think the people who served Scotland before, and their natural successors, will be ready to continue to serve it in future. As to how the Commission will use their very large fleet of nearly 5,000 vehicles in the retained companies is not for me to say. We should be much criticised if we imposed on the Commission conditions to carry out their services in any one part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Who is addressing the House and who is interrupting who? Who is my hon. Friend interrupting? How many times can these speeches be resumed by different hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary was speaking. We are not in Committee, and I think we should carry on.

Mr. Braithwaite: I suggested that my right hon. Friend should get up as it was obvious that what I was saying was not going very well with hon. Gentlemen

opposite. I was trying, obviously somewhat incompetently, to say that I felt that the fears of the right hon. Gentleman would not be realised because of the presence on the Disposal Board of a member of the Commission, and what was said by my right hon. Friend bears that out.
This Amendment excludes from the calculation the Special Traffics or Pickfords Division. We feel that the increase, be it substantial or otherwise, is sufficient to cover this problem of the horse-drawn vehicles and I was trying to say when I got involved in the geographical matter that an increase to seven-fourths would involve a duplication both in the case of Pickfords and the horse-drawn vehicles. If the House would like the figure, I understand that the horse-drawn substitutes would amount to a duplication of some 700 tons, and we felt that increase to five-fourths was adequate.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the figure of 700 tons? He said he had some difficulty in explaining to the House precisely what was the calculation to be made for horse-drawn vehicles. But he has not explained what allowance he has made in this change from six-fifths to five-fourths for the horse-drawn vehicles.

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I was speaking earlier about the difficulty of making a computation about the horse-drawn vehicles—

Mr. E. Fletcher: I appreciate the difficulty we are all in, but we rely on the Minister to explain the basis on which he makes the calculation. We are trying to follow it, though it is a very difficult arithmetical calculation to make. But the Minister is trying to justify the change in the ratio from six-fifths to five-fourths and to explain why that change is sufficient to compensate for the loss of these horse-drawn vehicles. All he has said so far is that it is difficult for him to explain. But if he cannot explain it how can we be expected to understand?

Mr. Braithwaite: I think I put that clearly enough, and when the hon. Member reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find what I said—

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

Mr. Braithwaite: May I answer this point? What I said earlier was that there was difficulty in making this computation about the horse-drawn vehicles and what should be their replacement for two reasons. One was the difference between the horses and the motor vehicles in radius of operation. The second point was that quite a number of horse-drawn vehicles had been given up and not replaced. The figure of 700 tons we obtained from the Commission. I think it fair to add that the Commission did not think they were receiving adequate replacement, and we feel that in increasing the ratio from six-fifths to five-fourths we are dealing with these points.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I regret that we have to press this point at this time in the morning, but when this Bill was being discussed previously I was not able to attend because of illness. I want to say how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) for raising the point with regard to these centralised stations. I am particularly interested in the station at Leith, which is in my constituency and which has been closed down as a railway passenger station and converted into a traffic base for parcels.
All the Parliamentary Secretary has said tonight—even if he said it badly it was confirmed by the Minister—is that this will not be settled on a geographical basis. Because of that, we have no assurance that even when a settlement is arrived at, Scotland, including Leith, will get its fair share of this traffic. The Parliamentary Secretary went even further than that, because he said that neither the present Commission nor its successors would be bound by anything that he said.
Can the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, even at this late stage, what is to be the future of this important traffic base and what is the intention of the Traffic Commission to deal with it? It calls for an answer. It was raised by my right hon. Friend some time ago. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) in correspondence with the Minister and with the Traffic Commission, so I do not think it is being unfair to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a reply tonight with regard to the future of this important base at Leith Central Station.

Mr. G. Wilson: I do not want to prolong this debate more than a few moments since, as one hon. Member opposite remarked a while ago, we have had all this argument before and that, if I may say so with respect, applies especially to the arguments that we have heard put forward for Scotland. Perhaps it does not come well from me, as one who comes from the far west, to go into details with regard to what may be happening with Scottish Road Services, but I would remark in passing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said that he thought the activities of British Road Services in Scotland were interesting but what some people find most interesting is that British Road Services are not paying very well. That is one reason why some people think—

Mr. Popplewell: They are paying at the moment.

Mr. Wilson: —that this small section of the road transport industry might be hived off from the much bigger section of the railways which form a majority of the Transport Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The point I want to refer to was made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman has said that at the moment the British Road Services are not paying. We hear such a lot of these general statements, so would he produce proof, because the information we have is that they are paying at the moment.

Mr. Wilson: We cannot repeat the debates that have been going on here for some months, but the point has been made repeatedly that the services which were taken over and nationalised and became part of British Road Services were paying better than the British Road Services as a whole are now doing.
3.15 a.m.
I know that that statement has been challenged by hon. Members opposite, but we really cannot repeat the debates we had on Second Reading, the Committee stage, on Report stage and on Third Reading. I wanted to mention Pickfords Special Division. I have not got the advantage of having all the figures in front of me but, speaking from memory, I think that the broad picture is that there was a very substantial Pick-fords in existence—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. Member would cease addressing the white rabbit or whatever it is on the bench near him and speak in this direction. He is inaudible.

Mr. Wilson: I am addressing the Chair and not the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I wish to point out that there was a substantial Pickfords in existence before the war. My impression is that the growth of Pickfords under nationalisation has not been a natural growth arising from commercial competition, but has largely come about because portions of nationalised long-distance road haulage businesses which were compulsorily acquired were added to Pickfords. That is not a natural commercial growth. If I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Enfield, East it was that Pickfords had grown up in competition with others as a successful commercial enterprise. I suggest that that is not so and that the growth has largely been as a result of parts hived off the nationalised haulage businesses and added to Pickfords.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the natural growth of 20 per cent. to which I referred was the 20 per cent. per annum by which Pickfords had grown. I said that the present increase allowed for in the Amendment of only 4 per cent. per annum over the five years was inadequate compared with the 20 per cent. On the other argument of the hon. Gentleman about the absorption by Pickfords of certain vehicles taken over from other undertakings, that only shows the advantage of nationalisation. Here was a consolidation of vehicles taken over into a concern which is now operating very profitably.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two points. On the one hand, the number of motor vehicles in Pickfords was growing before the war because horsedrawn vehicles were decreasing at an increasing rate as more and more motor vehicles were being employed. That was happening all over the country. But one cannot expect the increase in the number of motor vehicles at the expense of horsedrawn vehicles to continue at the same rate when there are no more horsedrawn vehicles left. They are already reduced to about 200 so that the per-

centage of horsedrawn vehicles taken over each year must be getting less and less, and one cannot expect a continuation of such growth of motor vehicles at the same rate as before the war because that growth was largely at the expense of horsedrawn vehicles. On the other hand, Pickfords has grown because vehicles from compulsorily acquired businesses were added to it.

Mr. D. Jones: Nobody would deny that the special vehicles in the service taken over by the Road Haulage Executive were added to the Pickfords Special Division to make it efficient. The fact that in the organisation of their business the Executive put all their special vehicles into one Division in order to use them most efficiently all over the country is a complete vindication of the socialising of long-distance road haulage and a perfectly intelligent thing to do.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Socialist logic.

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member wants to interrupt why does he not get on his feet? He should shut up.

Mr. Lindgren: He cannot stand up.

Mr. Jones: I was glad that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has been able to get off his chest one of the speeches he has been carting about the House for the last couple of days. We are also glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has plucked up sufficient courage to make a speech after his disappointment at not being able to attend the dinner of a transport association last night. There is not the slightest doubt that if he had attended that dinner he would have made the same kind of silly speech that he made at Nottingham a week ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for En-field, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has been arguing the case for an increased percentage of vehicles to be allocated to the British Transport Commission. He made out a good case. Earlier, the Minister of Transport called to his aid something which had been said by Mr. A. G. Marsden. Will the Minister now accept what that same gentleman said when he was speaking to the Institute of Transport on 9th April? He said that it was proposed to allow the British Transport Commission to increase their


1947 road transport strength by 25 per cent. and that such an increase seemed to be inadequate. He said that the railways were increasing their road transport strength before the war at something like 20 per cent. per annum, and had not the war intervened they would have had a much more stronger ancillary road transport section by now. If the Minister places so much reliance upon the statements of Mr. A. G. Marsden, the transport expert of Unilever Limited, why is he not now prepared to accept his advice in regard to this Amendment?
The right hon. Gentleman also said that if the Commission closed down a branch line they might not desire to continue to run passenger vehicles. We are now discussing not passenger vehicles but the substitution of road service vehicles for goods trains on branch lines, and if the Minister believes that the Commission might not want to take over the road haulage of those closed branch lines he would obviously believe anything. It must be fairly clear, even to him, with his elementary knowledge of transport, that when the same firm handle traffic from the point at which it is loaded on to the railway to the point where it is delivered to the consumer it must increase the efficiency of the service.
Does he really believe that the Commission will not want to take over that

road haulage? Does he really believe that they will be carrying out their obligations under the 1947 Act if they do not provide services for the traders in those areas where branch lines are being closed down? How are they to provide those services if the Minister does not give them the vehicles?

Already it has been pointed out to the Minister that the number of vehicles allowed to be retained by the Transport Commission, if they continue to operate the Pickford's Special Traffic Division in the way they are operating it now, will not allow them sufficient vehicles to do their own work and to carry out the substitution service which, unquestionably, the public of this country will expect them to carry out. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the Minister should pay attention to Mr. Marsden's advice and increase substantially the number of vehicles allowed to the Transport Commission.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put. "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 234.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[3.26 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullard, D. G.
Fort, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Foster, John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Burden, F. F. A
Fraser, Han Hugh (Stone)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Campbell, Sir David
Fyfe, Fit. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Arbuthnot, John
Carr, Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Channon, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Godber, J. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Gough, C. F. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Gower, H. R.


Barber, Anthony
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, A. B.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimond, J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crouch, R. F.
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Black, C. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bossom, A. C.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E, McA
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bowen, E. R.
Donner, P. W.
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Edward


Braine, B. R.
Erroll, F. J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fell, A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hint, Geoffrey


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Holland-Martin, C. J.




Hellis, M. C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Scott, R. Donald


Holt, A. F.
Marlowe, A A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hope, Lord John
Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, William


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Mellor, Sir John
Soames, Capt. C.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Storey, S.


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kerr, H. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor,Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)




Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Linstead, H. N.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Low, A. R. W.
Pitman, I. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
WaKefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McCallum, Major D.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclay. Rt. Hon. John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wellwood, W.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrie)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Hon. R.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.



Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Chetwynd, G. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Albu, A. H.
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Collick, P. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gibson, C. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, James


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Baird, J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grey, C. F.


Bartley, P.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bence, C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Beswick, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Deer, G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, W. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hargreaves, A.


Boardman, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bowden, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Bowles, F. G.
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J. H.


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Callaghan, L. J.
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, M. M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Champion, A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Chapman, W. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)







Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Janner, B.
Orbach, M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oswald, T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Swingler, S. T.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Keenan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Porter, G.
Thornton, E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Tomney, F.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Lewis, Arthur
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


MacCoIl, J. E.
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mclnnes, J.
Rhodes, H.
West, D. G.


McLeavy, F.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirone (E. Flint)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Royle, C.
Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Short, E. W.
Willey, F. T.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierkty Hill)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Monslow, W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Morley, R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Yales, V. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.



Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Taylor.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 250.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[3.36 a.m.


Adams, Richard
Champion, A. J.
Foot, M. M.


Albu, A. H.
Chapman, W. D.
Forman, J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Awbory, S. S.
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Baird, J.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Glanville, James


Bartley, P.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bence, C. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grey, C. F.


Benson, G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hale, Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Deer, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Boardman, H.
Dedds, N. N.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hannan, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hayman, F. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Brockway, A. F.
Edelman, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Rogis)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Herbison, Miss M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Goorge (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Houghton, Douglas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, J. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carmichael, J.
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)




Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mulley, F. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Janner, B.
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Peart, T. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


Keenan, W.
Popplewell, E.
Timmons, J.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G.
Tomney, F.


King, Dr. H. M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)



Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Proctor, W. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rankin, John
Weitzman, D.


Lewis, Arthur
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
West, D. G.


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McGhee, H. G.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mclnnes, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wigg, George


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, F. T.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Manuel A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W.T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mikardo, Ian
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Monslow, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Moody, A. S.
Snow, J. W.



Morley, R.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.


Moyle, A.
Sparks, J. A.





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Campbell, Sir David
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Channon, H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godber, J. B.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.


Baldock, Lt.Cmdr. J. M.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gower, H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Graham, Sir Fergus


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Grimond, J.


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baxter, A. B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hay, John


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Bowen, E. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Henderson, John (Catheart)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hollis, M. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fort, R.
Holt, A. F.


Bullard, D. G.
Foster, John
Hope, Lord John







Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Smilhers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Mellor, Sir John
Soames, Capt. C.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Molson, A. H. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (File, E.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Noble, Cmdr, A. H. 
Storey, S.


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kerr, H. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
O'Neil, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, RI. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Pelersfield)
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peake, Rt. Hon, O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Linstead, H. N.
Peto, Brig, G. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. W.
Turton, R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price Henry (Lewsham, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. D.L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prifumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McCallum, Major D.
Rayner, Brig, R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Maclay, RI. Hon. John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Roper, Sir Harold
Wellwood, W.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wills, G.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wood, Hon. R.


Markham, Major S. F.
Scott, R. Donald



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marples, A. E.
Shepherd, William 
Mr. Studbolme and Major Conant.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next one to leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert:
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—

(a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;
(b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads;
(c) other motor vehicles,

does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively.
are designed to give expression to various undertakings that I gave in the House. It had been represented to the Government

that in the view of the Commission—and I know that this is also the view of many right hon. and hon. Members opposite and of some also on the Government side—neither the sum total of vehicles that could be retained by the Commission, nor the flexibility of the-various types of vehicle within that sum total, were as fair as they should be.
The Commission made strong representations to me on this matter and as a result of the discussion here and in another place, certain changes have been made. As was said—

Mr. Callaghan: Which Amendment is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am moving now, of course, only the Amendment dealing with the "six-fifths" and the "five-fourths." [Interruption.] I do not know how the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) likes to conduct


business. If the two Amendments are related, no harm is done by pointing out that fact. I am quite aware that I cannot move the second Amendment at the same time. It seemed desirable to point that out as it might otherwise be difficult for some hon. Members who have not followed the Bill with the same care and consideration that we have had to do.
The Commission made certain representations to me in regard to the second of the two Amendments, and when I get to it I will, of course, give full publicity to what the Commission have told me on the matter—

Mr. Callaghan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —as I was asked to do by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who has some knowledge of what the Commission's views are on that subject. On the issue of deleting "six-fifths" and inserting "five-fourths," however, we feel that we have gone a considerable way to meet the feeling both of the House and of the Commission.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) told the story of the various stages whereby the Government had advanced, as he put it, seeing the light better and better as they went along the road, until now they arrived at an Amendment to give five-fourths of the former railway and canal-owned companies' vehicles. I would not say that the hon. Gentleman's history was strictly accurate; it was a little picturesque, but, broadly, I accept it as a fair statement of the stages whereby the Government have moved to the present position.
On the question of the number of vehicles that the Commission should be allowed to retain, which now culminates in the five-fourths, no less than 42 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT were spoken in the Committee stage and a further 20 columns on the Report stage.

Mr. Callaghan: With some effect.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With some effect. That shows the value of Parliament. Also, there were many discussions in another place and a number of columns spoken there, with some effect, which shows also the value of the other place.

Mr. Callaghan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should not accept the view of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that this increase to five-fourths is unfair in regard to the Pickfords Special Division. It is easy to get a little unrealistic about this excellent body and to paint it as if it was the same business as the old Hay's Wharf Cartage Company (Pickfords and Carter Paterson). It is nothing of the sort. On the one hand, it does not operate the parcels services and, on the other hand, it has taken over many specialised vehicles from other haulage concerns, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) pointed out. We feel that the expansion in this field is fairly taken care of, as in other fields, by the proposed new figure. So, we propose, instead of the Commission being allowed to retain six-fifths of the vehicles which the former railway and canal companies owned before nationalisation, they should be allowed to retain five-fourths. We regard the undertaking that the Commission should have six-fifths of the vehicles as sufficient to take account of normal growth, and, also, for those vehicles which were in companies in which the railways had less than a controlling interest.
I was impressed by the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about horse-drawn vehicles. We have made a further concession and we regard the five-fourths figure as being fair in respect of horse-drawn vehicles. I know that various hon. Members think there should be a larger figure than this conceded in return for horse-drawn vehicles which possibly have had mechanised vehicles substituted for them. It is difficult to arrive at a fair figure of what would be a proper approximation. The best evidence I have is that on 1st January, 1948, the railway-controlled companies had 3,868 horse-drawn vehicles, 300 of which they transferred to the Railway Executive.
These, of course, will not fall for disposal now; nor will their substitutes. They disposed of a further 2,800 and 700 of them are still with the Road Haulage Executive. How many of those which were disposed of, were never strictly replaced or were disposed of because of redundancy, I do not know. I suspect quite a number. We must also remember the very limited range of these horse-drawn vehicles, which has always been


taken into account by the licensing authority when granting a B or A licence in substitution for a horse-drawn vehicle. We feel the figure of 200 vehicles, or 700 tons further, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, is quite substantial and does take account of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope the House will accept this as an illustration of the Government's desire to do the fair thing by the Commission. I do not expect the Opposition, who dislike the Bill, to regard the dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive with anything but indignation. But, I hope they recognise that, by having first agreed they should have some vehicles and then having arrived at the present figure by successive stages, the Government has shown they are not only ready to listen to Parliamentary arguments in both Houses, but are anxious to act fairly over the British Transport Commission, which has a great many practical difficulties to face, of which I am fully conscious myself.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall be the last to deny that the Minister has certainly listened to the arguments advanced in the 62 columns of HANSARD in which we have discussed this matter. He has been consistently regular in his attendance in the House and has set an example to us all by the way he has attended to this Bill. Equally, I will admit that the pressure placed upon him has yielded some dividends to common sense and to the common interest.
If I may recapitulate, the original conception of the Government was that the Commission should retain absolutely no vehicles at all. They were moved from the position by overwhelming criticism to the point where they said the Commission could keep the equivalent of what they had on 1st January, 1948. After further argument they were moved to the position when they admitted there had been some growth and they would be able to keep six-fifths of what they had. Finally, we have reached the position where in another place they agreed that the Commission should be allowed to keep five-fourths of what they had.
I am told that that is greater than six-fifths by 5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 4 per cent."] I think it is 5 per cent. I think the Minister calculates in these percentages in order to hide the paucity of what he is doing. I am not

surprised that he speaks in these fractions about which there can be great argument, even among the distinguished mathematicians on both sides of the House instead of referring to the tonnage figures which the Commission are to be allowed to keep.
I feel I am moving among more familiar figures when I say that out of a total of about 40,000 vehicles the Minister's concession is 200 vehicles. Or, as an alternative way of putting it, out of a total tonnage of vehicles which the Commission now runs of about 200,000—I am not attempting to be very precise—the Minister is allowing them to keep another 700 tons. If the figures are substantially wrong I will correct them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give a wrong impression to hon. Members who have not followed the whole of the discussion. That is true about the last extension to the vehicles which now number 4,875 with a maximum unladen weight of 17,000 tons. But as he himself said, when the plan was originally devised there were to be no vehicles allowed at all.

Mr. Callaghan: The point I was coming to was that made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the 700 tons. He said that out of a total of 200,000 tons that was a substantial concession. When I challenged him he resumed his seat for consultation purposes and then came back to aver it even more dogmatically and sternly, saying that 700 tons out of 200,000 was a substantial concession. If that is a substantial concession heaven save us from a niggardly concession from this Government.
4 a.m.
These concessions are very little and the Commission are dissatisfied with what is allowed to them. They do not regard it as equitable. In deciding why we should have that fraction the Minister said he wanted to give the Commission something for natural growth in accordance with other commercial enterprises since 1st January. He has allowed an expansion of about 4 per cent. per annum whereas before nationalisation Pickfords were expanding at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum.
I ask the Minister why, when there was such a substantial annual growth, and


with reference to the arguments I addressed to him earlier on another Amendment that road haulage units were growing larger steadily every year, and the myth of the little men now exists only in the week-end country speeches of Tory Members? The Parliamentary Secretary is an adept at drawing on his imagination rather than relying on the facts, but in this case he knows that Pickfords is growing and has been growing at far faster rate than the Minister has given them credit for. I ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—who has not exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment—to tell us what consideration has led them to arrive at the conclusion that the natural growth of Pickfords has slowed down to the point where it is only one-fifth of what it was before nationalisation.
This is a serious point to which the Minister has not yet given us an answer. The next point which he has not answered was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in connection with horse-drawn vehicles. The Minister tells us that he has made a concession in respect of horse-drawn vehicles that have been converted to motor vehicles, but for the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles that existed previously, he is only giving the Commission 200 motor vehicles. Why? Is it his view that 200 motor vehicles are the equivalent of 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles? This is not the view of those engaged in the industry, and we would like to know why he takes this harsh view of the substitution that he has made.
What is the Minister afraid of? Is he really afraid of having properly-run public enterprise in competition with private enterprise? Is this really the reason why in every case he is acting so harshly towards the Commission as not to permit them to run services that they ought to be able to run? The case we have made, time after time, is that the Commission, whatever else may be said against it, has originated first-rate trunk services up and down the roads of our country. It is the estimate of the Commission itself that it would need about double the tonnage of vehicles that the Minister is proposing to give it if it is to maintain those trunk services.
We know it is the wish of traders that those trunk services should be retained. They have made that view clear. We know, too, that under this Bill there is no guarantee that those trunk services will be retained by any of the private traders who are coming into the business. Why is the Minister frightened to allow the Transport Commission to operate the trunk services that it has built up, to which it is indebted to no one and which it has built up out of its own enterprise? It did not take over anyone's business to do it. They were only in a skeleton and rudimentary form before it took them over. They are its child.
Why does the Minister wish to strangle it when it is showing signs of growing into a lusty and efficient child? The Minister is being most unfair to the Commission in this matter. He is being worse than that: he is interfering with, and worsening, the services that the traders will get in trunk services because he knows that he can give no guarantee that they will be continued. And all for the insane desire he seems to have that all costs the Commission must be stripped of its road haulage services.
While we recognise that the Minister has made some small concession here—the Parliamentary Secretary may stick to the word "substantial" if he wishes, but I do not regard 700 tons as being in any way a substantial concession—he has made no case at all for acting in this harsh way. I can only suggest that as the 62 columns of HANSARD have been successful in getting the Minister to change his mind once, twice, and I think three or four times now, perhaps we shall have the opportunity, by means of further discussion this morning, of making him change it yet once again.
The Member has shown by the constant changes he has made not only that he is convinced by the arguments but that his case was bad to start with. And his case, despite these small concessions is still a bad one. He knows that it is a bad one. The Patronage Secretary had to rescue the Parliamentary Secretary in the last debate by moving the Closure before we could develop the case to the full. I warned the Patronage Secretary then that he would not get away with it and that we should develop the case on this Amendment instead, and that is what we must continue to


do. We cannot permit the public interest to be sacrificed in this Bill by the Minister where for no reason at all he is breaking up an efficient unit built up by the Commission.
For those reasons we spurn with contempt this concession. We regard it as valueless to meet the problem with which the Minister is confronting the Commission by his own actions. He is making their task more difficult and we shall most certainly in due course register our view that a concession of this nature is entirely nugatory and hardly worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Hargreaves: The Minister indicated a basis of computation when considering this question of horse-drawn vehicles which have been turned over to motor vehicles and which were represented in this fractional increase to be allowed to the Commission. I wish to suggest what I believe is a fairly reasonable basis of computation. The Minister said that the addition of 200 vehicles or 700 tons unladen weight was reasonable to represent 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles.
I put it to the Minister that a reasonable basis of computation—it is not an average but less than average—is one of 25 cwts. unladen weight. That unladen weight might actually go up to 2½ tons. On the basis of 25 cwts. for those 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles we get an unladen weight of 3,750 tons. The Minister suggests that for that unladen weight of 3,750 tons a reasonable computation—a fair addition for this fraction which covers not only horse-drawn vehicles but also what the Minister referred to as a natural growth over a term of years—is now 700 tons or 200 vehicles. I suggest that it is utterly ridiculous to take that as any basis of comparison with the figures of horse-drawn vehicles in existence at that time and is an attempt to compute their value in terms of motor vehicles in existence at the present time.
In our discussions it has not yet been made clear what this fractional increase means to the Commission in terms of service vehicles. I would remind the House that one of the first principles of this Bill is that the Commission shall continue to provide transport services on the roads of this country. The terms of this Lords Amendment are that the Commission shall continue those services

during the time at which sales are proceeding. The Commission are entitled to retain one vehicle in every nine. They have to maintain their present services even when the means of maintaining them have been taken from them by the sale of their vehicles.
For a few moments I want to refer to the services which the Commission are enjoined to continue. There are the contract services, upon which 3,000 vehicles of the Commission are now being used, and those services provide special facilities to firms who are identified with the vehicles. There is the Pickfords Service, representing 3,500 vehicles; the parcels service, representing 3,750 vehicles, and the long-distance haulage service—apart from that of the special Pickfords Service—representing 6,500 vehicles.
The Minister proposes that the major services now carried on by the Commission shall be continued during the process of sale. If they are permitted to retain only one vehicle out of every nine, and the basis of computation with regard to horse-drawn vehicles and the growth of the service since nationalisation is to be represented by the 200 vehicles allowed to the Commission, the purpose mentioned in the opening phrases of the Bill is impossible of achievement.
I have made a suggestion for computing the relative values in terms of tonnage and vehicles as applied to the 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles to which the Minister himself referred. I ask the Minister if a fair basis of computation of tonnage and of motor vehicles now is not a reasonable one, and therefore this fractional increase does not by any means enable the Commission to carry out the work laid upon them by the Bill.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Hale: I am glad that at least a few people are here to observe the present scene. Here we are discussing a major Amendment to a Bill which occupied 62 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the Committee and Report stages, in spite of the Guillotine, and it was a very honest Opposition effort to devote so much limited time on this Bill, especially when the closure was moved after every few columns. We are told that this is a reasonable time to debate the Amendments. We cannot know the reason, but we are expected to debate


them while a dozen Tory Members are lying full length on the benches taking no interest whatever. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anyone for going to sleep. I am blaming the Leader of the House who compels people to reach such a state. Even the gallant brigade commander does not appreciate he is supposed to be on "night ops"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might come to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Hale: This is a point of great importance to which I am entitled to devote a little time and to which I am entitled to demand some attention from hon. Members in the House. I would, with respect, make a second point. I am well within the rules of order if I call attention to a breach of order which is taking place on the benches opposite—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to that, certainly hon. Members who are reclining on the benches ought to be sitting up.

Mr. Hale: Now that we have been restored to a state of order in which we would wish to carry on the debate, may I refer to the Amendment? I am glad that at last an English Member is able to deal with this matter, because I am speaking on behalf of Lancashire. Lavish compliments have been extended to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). When I saw another Scotsman, representing an English constituency, the Patronage Secretary, moving the closure after two such Scottish speeches, I am beginning to wonder if Lancashire will receive any of these vehicles at all.
I hoped that in the course of the debate on the first Amendment to the Lords Amendment we should have received some utterances from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some information, which would have enabled us to view the position with a little more confidence. We all welcomed the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The sudden breaking of his monastic silence after so many hours made us feel that he was about to bring us information. I do not personally agree with the

Minister's view that to let the Parliamentary Secretary speak more would do any harm. I do not think he did any harm at all, and when he sat down we were in precisely the same position.
There was a very remarkable interlude in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, which led to some confusion. I hope that he will not think for a moment that I am using an ungracious metaphor, because I have a great respect for him. We have all heard of the folly of the man who has a dog and then barks himself, but the occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary called on the Minister to intervene in his own speech to answer an interruption in his own speech must be the first occasion on record on which a dog has gone on strike and asked his master to do the barking.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made perhaps the best justification of the action of the Leader of the House that could be made, because, notwithstanding the advanced hour, he made one of the ablest speeches on the previous Amendment, every word of which is relevant to this Amendment, and every word of which was directed to this Amendment. It was one of the ablest speeches and one of the most clear speeches I have heard for many a long day. I thought when I heard it that it was an unanswerable speech, and it has remained without answer.
There is one point on which I want to seek guidance so as to understand this matter. In an earlier discussion we were told that there was power in the provisions of subsection (7) for them to adopt a method, if they wished, of proposing reserved prices on vehicles to be disposed of, and we had some discussion then on the possibility of rings being formed and offers made for vehicles at fixed prices after the Bill was available. Now we are to have the most repressive overall limit applied to the number of vehicles to be retained by the British Transport Commission. What happens to the vehicles for which no decent offer is made? They cannot be used by the Commission. They will not be sold to the bidder because the rings are operating and they have not reached the reserved price. They will be left in some carpark, dumped away to rust. What is to


happen to them? They will be sold as chattels, presumably.

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: Send them to Oldham.

Mr. Hale: I shall say a few words about Oldham in a minute if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait a moment. I shall be happy to show how this Clause will affect the town I have the honour to represent.
What is to happen to these vehicles? The plain fact is, the Minister does not know. I paid a reasonably lavish tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for the observations he made, but one thing we must condemn him about, the one thing that seemed unforgivably naïve—if he will forgive the word—was when he turned to the Minister and asked him to explain something he did not understand about the Bill. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman was the last person on earth to ask to explain the Bill to anybody, and the last person on earth to be expected to understand it.
We have tried to find out and are entitled to know whether there is to be an area company for Lancashire. If so, who decides what the allocation of vehicles is to be for Lancashire, and who decides the nature of the allocation and the sort of semi-State company that is to operate to cover that great industrial area? The Parliamentary Secretary said, "At this stage that is all I can say." Well, this is the last stage. It is the finish now, unless they take the sensible course of withdrawing the Bill even at this stage, but the Parliamentary Secretary says, "I cannot give you any more information. You will have to advance with us into the darkness hoping that light will come when the Bill has been passed."
I should like to make one other point on the question of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles and the railways. It was the invariable practice of the traffic courts, if an application came from the railway company to replace a horse-drawn vehicle by a haulage vehicle, to grant the licence. Indeed, so invariable was it that I am not even sure whether objections could be lodged. I am perfectly certain that objections were never heard. That was the invariable practice, because it was so obviously in the pub-

lic interest. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East for the information that in the period we are discussing there were in use 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles that required to be replaced.
Let us look at the matter in terms of Oldham. I never like to operate the parish pump with the regularity of my Scottish hon. Friends, but I must point out that Oldham made the greatest contribution to our balance of payments—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It sent the Prime Minister to Parliament.

Mr. Hale: I believe the right hon. Gentleman crossed the Floor of the House while he was the Member for Oldham, but he did not return to the city.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no necessity for me to point out, as the hon. Member must know, that this is out of order.

Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am trying to apply this in terms of my duty to my constituency and the effect this will have on my constituency. If I did not take Oldham I could take a fictitious town, but I think it important that I should put this most serious point. It is only six miles from Manchester, the great marketing centre for the textile industry, and years ago all these goods used to go by rail. Gradually the whole picture changed. I hazard the guess that today all the passenger traffic goes by bus, which is much more convenient. At present we have a railway service which calls at seven or eight stations, two in Manchester and three separate stations in the borough of Oldham itself—Werneth. Clegg Street and Mumps.
I am trying to put a serious argument. It is most important to this great town that the scheme for the co-ordination of transport should succeed. It is of vital importance that our great textile engineering industries, which have to send products of enormous weight, should have adequate facilities. A great deal of the replacement of railway facilities by road haulage facilities envisaged and carried out under the 1947 Act will be possible no longer if this miserably inadequate Amendment is carried, and they were of vital importance. One vast area


of the town is split in two by the railway and transport has to go a mile or two round it. I am talking of a great town which has serious problems, and I want the House to consider them in that light.
What is to happen now? We are told that we are to return to horse-drawn vehicles or competitive enterprise to get our goods through. The Minister of Transport was asked a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling about tanks. Tanks require much the same sort of transport as textile machinery, very heavy transport. The Minister rose with great aplomb and said that it used to be done by private enterprise and we would go back to private enterprise. We shall still have a nationalised Army, but denationalised transport.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really do not see what tanks have to do with this Amendment.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry, but may I explain as briefly as I can? What is happening is that we are applying a tonnage rate test to the amount of allocation to be allowed to the Commission. The average weight, even on the basis of replacement, is about 3½ tons of net weight, and the sort of vehicles required for tanks or heavy textile machinery are of enormously greater weight. So, we are not only getting this gross reduction on vehicles, but if essential traffic is to be carried, the number of vehicles will have to be reduced again. We are not told upon what basis that will be; but what we do know is that it is impossible to conduct the trade and industry of a great town on the basis of the proposals we now have.
What does the Amendment say? The Amendment suggests that there should be an increase of 4 per cent. over the figure in the previous Amendment. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have to explain elementary arithmetic, but it is an increase of 5 per cent. on the figure of 1948. It is really quite simple, and while I would never be discourteous to the House of Commons, I would adopt parochialism from the parish pump and say there are no "blasted" juveniles in Oldham who would not understand that with greater celerity. We are being asked for an in-

crease of 40 per cent.—or two-fifths of the amended figure. The Parliamentary Secretary was handed a sheet of paper with figures on it, which he had obviously not seen before, and with an expression of delight, explained that the actual tonnage had gone up, and that if this Amendment was carried, it would go up to 25 per cent.
We are in this position of difficulty, and I do not minimise that difficulty. The Lords' Amendment does make this increase; an increase which means a half of one per cent. of the total fleet of A vehicles we are talking about. It is a contemptuous figure. The Parliamentary Secretary called this substantial, while I think the Minister spoke of "some progress." Well, it is some progress; it is an advance of five yards in a 125 yards' race—4 per cent. What is being suggested here is precisely this. What is suggested is that the great arterial ways of this country, be they rail, or be they road highways, are deliberately to be crippled in their service to the country because of a policy of venom and because no one can defend the figures as put forward and which have been attacked by my hon. Friends.
During the war we had a period of six or seven years when the railway companies, preoccupied with the enormous burdens laid upon them and doing a service without which the country could not survive, and which was a No. 1 priority, probably did not take the normal methods of expanding their fleets to the extent that they would have done in normal conditions; and in 1945 the proposals for the nationalisation of transport were already formulated and ready to be announced. The railway companies were at a disadvantage at that stage.
Now, it is said that instead of what we compute as a normal necessary increase of about 20 per cent. per year, we shall get, not over what my right hon. Friend called five years—I make it six years; there are six months for these disposals to take place, and the computation has to be from 1st January, 1948, to not earlier than 1st January, 1954, which is six years—an offering which on the basis of the 1948 take-over is a 4 per cent. per annum increase on the existing figure towards the normal increase.

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order. May I call attention to the reclining figures opposite?

Mr. Callaghan: Wake them up.

Mr. Frederic Harris: What about those on the other side?

Mr. Hale: All that is being given is 4 per cent., or about one-fifth of the normal increase. But, of course, the increase would not have been normal. We had reached the stage when there was an absolute demand for horse-drawn vehicles to come up the road. I know that they steer clear of the city centre, but everyone knows that most municipalities are anxious to welcome a reduction in the number of horse-drawn vehicles that clutter up the road and are anxious to assist in every way alterations and replacement by motor transport; and that would have happened. There is no allowance for that at all.

Mr. Grimond: What about the Shetland pony?

Mr. Hale: I hear again that we have the parish pump. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is talking about that local means of transport, which we all respect very much and which, I understand from Professor de Castro, is the result of malnutrition. But the hon. Member will, I hope, develop that point more fully when he comes to speak. That, then, is the position. There is no allowance whatever for this great overall problem of the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles.
What now is it suggested is to be the position? To what are the vehicles to be allocated? On what basis is it to be decided, and on what basis are the vehicles to be selected for allocation to the Transport Commission or to the companies to be formed to operate them? My right hon. Friend made a moving and convincing case, to which no answer has been made. It really is shocking that no one has attempted to answer it.
What is the contemplation of the Government in this matter? Is it contemplated that the Commission should abolish altogether this parcel-carrying trade? Is it contemplated that they should abandon altogether the work done by Pickfords, which involves a great deal of heavy transport?

Mr. Mitchison: Shame.

Mr. Hale: I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was expressing dissent, but I gather that he was reassuring and fortifying me.

Mr. Mitchison: To relieve my hon. Friend of any anxiety, let me say that I was merely expressing the shame and indignation that all of us would feel if the horrible eventualities he was contemplating actually came about.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful for that explanation. There is a method by which my hon. and learned Friend could express similar feelings without leading to any misinterpretation on the part of the less bright of us who misinterpret, and that is by the normal method of saying "Hear, hear."
Who is to decide which of these vital services goes? Who is to decide whether we carry heavy goods, or light goods, and whether we maintain these vital links along the roads, at which thousands of parcels and goods can be delivered from point to point? This is a great service, and magnificently done. Let me relate one simple experience of my own. I moved my house from Leicestershire to London, somewhat reluctantly, a year or two age. Because of the Prayers in the House at that time, it was almost impossible for me to see my wife without bringing her with the furniture. At 10 a.m. or a little earlier that morning, I commenced to pack my furniture into one enormous van and to wrap it, label it, and put it in in such a way that everything could be readily identified. By 3 p.m. the next day, the whole of the furniture was in a flat in London.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask if this was the Special Parcels Division?

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask if it came under the category of abnormal and indivisible load?

Mr. Hale: I shall not reply as I do not want to go outside the terms of order because of facetious interruptions in the middle of my peroration, which I confess, is somewhat disconcerting.
This is a major attack upon what is today an essential public service, and a social service, too. Nobody has listened to the arguments. The right hon. Gentleman thinks the Commission can function


on this miserable, niggardly figure. There is an old proverb about cutting one's nose to spite one's face. I suppose the Opposition has difficulty in justifying itself if it votes against the five-fourth figure, which is a little more than six-fifths. But the Lords Amendment is so contemptuous and niggardly that it still leaves the Transport Commission crippled, forced to lose money, or forced to destroy its services so that, I hope, my hon. Friends might seriously consider even taking the difficult course of recording the protest we feel at the way the Commission is being treated.

Mr. Grimond: I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will forgive another Scotsman addressing the House. I hope he will forgive me, too, if I do not yield to the temptation he offered me of pursuing that interesting animal, the Shetland pony. I feel I might be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if not with the hon. Member.
It seems that the hon. Member's fears over this particular Lords Amendment may be exaggerated because the future of this industry depends less upon the particular provisions of this Bill than upon the developments which must take place after the Bill is in full effect. All this Bill does is to draw up the horses, so to speak, at the starting gate. Once it is in full effect, there is comparatively little control over them.
I cannot be expected at this time of day to say anything new, and it would be a new departure if I did. As I understand, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from buying further vehicles in the future and, therefore, what is important from the Commission's point of view is not so much the proportion with which it starts as its ability to buy further vehicles and to obtain licences for further services.
I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the licensing system with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as that may be out of order, but if the Commission can obtain licences for further services there is nothing to prevent them, if they have the money, from going into the market and increasing the number of their vehicles.

Mr. Mitcthison: Does the hon. Member contemplate that the Commission should first sell the vehicles and then be entitled to buy more?

Mr. Grimond: I do not suggest that. I only suggest that they will be entitled to buy new vehicles.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Paget: This would seem to be the most remarkable justification one could imagine for this proposal that the Road Haulage Executive, having built us the services to a state of high efficiency and adapted them to the carrying of special loads, such as the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), should have to sell the vehicles and then buy them back again. What a fantastic justification.

Mr. Mellish: And will have to get a licence in order to buy them back, and go through all that procedure.

Mr. Paget: What are they going to use for money? I feel that the Minister is looking at the Liberal Party and saying, "Save me from my friends." That is what a good many people have said after contemplating the Liberal Party. But I think it would be impossible to find a better illustration of the fundamental dishonesty of this Measure.
This is something which certainly has not occurred before in British history, the corrupt carve-up of public property for political funds. The Conservative Party seem to have two kinds of morality. There is the promise they made to the electorate which is bare-facedly ignored and the promise bought and paid for which has to be carried out; and as this transport deal that we are witnessing continues, we see the flagrant corruption becoming more apparent. Here is an illustration that 200 vehicles are compensation for 7,000 horse-drawn vehicles—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—3,000 horse-drawn vehicles, that is some 700 tons—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps been so busy with other things that he has not checked up on this. He is adding the vehicles, the horse-drawn vehicles which belonged to the Commission and were used for the purposes of the Road Haulage Executive and those used for the collection and delivery services of the rail-


ways. He has taken the two lots of figures—I think I know where he got them from—and has put them together.

Mr. Paget: Even if the figure is 3,000 horse-drawn vehicles to be substituted by 200 motorised vehicles, the inequity of the deal is no less obvious. It does not affect the principle. Licences for one motor vehicle were granted automatically. They were always treated as one for one, and now they are being treated as one for 15. It is not good enough. The railways are being asked to carry on the transport hopelessly handicapped, and deliberately handicapped, in order to make a profit for the purchasers who come in, a profit which is being flagrantly made at public expense. We should not be doing our duty if we were not to divide against this Amendment.

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has not stayed a few minutes longer. We appear to have offended him by being parochial. He would have us believe that Scotland has commandeered the House far too long on this Amendment, but it is important for Scotland, as it is important for Oldham.
I do not know how we are to get a reply. The Minister said that we were all indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) for the work he did, and that because of his effort we have had this increase of from six-fifths to five-fourths. My right hon. Friend and I tried to get the Minister to say exactly what share of this increased transport was to be left in Scotland. I have heard that the Minister intended to reply or, if not, then his Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, I think he might have replied, only he was prevented from doing so by the Patronage Secretary who moved the Closure. I mentioned my own constituency and the great building which had been taken over by the Transport Commission after it had been closed down as a passenger railway station for the better organising and distribution of the parcels service. I asked the Minister if he could tell us what would happen to it.
If I thought the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to reply,

I might ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I must say for him that he sat throughout many hours of this debate. He must know from his position at the Scottish Office how important this traffic is for the south-east of Scotland. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not had the benefit of a word or two from the Minister. He was one of the great experts.
We might also have heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). People in his constituency are complaining that when this service is wiped out the Government will not put anything in its place. Hundreds of people will be left without a service of any kind. I do not want to speak for the hon. Member or for his right hon. Friend. I am particularly interested in what will happen in my own area and I should like to know whether the Minister will reply.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes.

Mr. Hoy: At least I have got a promise from the Minister—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said that I would give a reply when the hon. Gentleman sits down.

Mr. Hoy: That is most reprehensible. The Minister said, "I will give you a reply, but it will not be the one you want." That is the kind of thing we have been getting all night. Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland reply? I take it that he is sitting on the Front Bench tonight because he is to reply to any specific Scottish problems that arise. I suggest that until we get a reply it will be the duty of the Scottish Members in this House to keep the debate in progress so that we may be told what the set-up in Scotland will be.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is an ironical fact that if we had not given any further concession to the Commission in another place we should not have been able to have had this debate tonight. There would have been no Lords Amendment to which the Opposition Amendment could have been moved. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides know enough about our procedure to know that that is so. I do not in the least regret that we have had this debate. It has certainly given me an insight into the home affairs of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
On the question of horse-drawn traffic and the substitution of motor vehicles I believe that it was, and is, the practice of the Metropolitan licensing authority—I am speaking subject to correction—to grant 2½ tons unladen weight for every two horses given up. That is not an invariable rule and the practice differs from one licensing authority to another. But the difficulty we face in the case of the large number of horse-drawn vehicles taken over by the Commission and dispensed with is when we ask how many of them can fairly be said to have been dispensed with so that motor vehicles could be substituted for them, and how many were really dispensed with because they were redundant. We can argue until the cows, or rather the horses, come home on this question. We are satisfied that this concession goes some way to take care of the need and in the circumstances it is adequate.
The other question that was asked related to the growth in Pickfords Special Division and various kindred matters. I hope that it is not necessary once more to say that Pickfords Special Division as it is today is not the same thing as the old Pickfords which was part of Carter Paterson of the Hays Wharf Company. When such companies were controlled by the railway companies on 1st January, 1948, they owned some 3,900 vehicles. These included 164 heavy haulage and 1,257 other special vehicles in addition to normal haulage vehicles.
5.0 a.m.
The present Pickfords Division was built round this nucleus, but it is a different entity from the old Pickfords organisation. It may well be—I do not know and I have no means of checking up—that Pickfords business increased by 20 per cent. annually before the war. I do not think that anybody has any accurate statistics on that matter. But I am concerned with the allowance for growth which has been provided in the Bill. This was obviously not just a guess. Our allowance for growth was based on a comparison of the general growth of A-licensed and Commission-owned vehicles from December, 1946, to December, 1952.
In December, 1946, there were 81,000 A-licensed vehicles, and in December,

1952, there were 94,000 A-licensed vehicles and Commission-owned vehicles. That shows an increase of 13,000 over a period of six years, which is rather below 3 per cent., and all this argument of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. as representing the Commission's increase should be viewed in the light of the fact that over the whole field of A-licensed and Commission-owned vehicles the increase has been less than 3 per cent. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government that the figure we arrived at was a fair one, and I am perfectly prepared to defend it. I can hold out no hope that that figure will be altered.
I was also asked a question by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). I congratulate him on his ingenuity in getting that question into this debate when he had failed to elicit from me an answer in the previous debate. In regard to the broad needs of Scotland I do not share the pessimistic views that have been expressed about Scotland's freight transport future. They appear to me to be based on the most gloomy expectations, which there seems no reason to think will be realised.
In the light of modern developments private enterprise can well provide adequate services in Scotland. I do not know what the Commission may decide to do, and I would not attempt to prejudge their unfettered decision with regard to their Scottish operations.
As for the particular building in Leith to which my attention was directed, it would clearly be impossible for me to say what would happen to it in advance of the disposal of the property of the Road Haulage Executive. At the moment, I do not know the precise term of tenure. It might, for example, be jointly used by railways and road haulage, in which case there is a special provision to cover it. It might be used wholly by road haulage and look like falling for sale, but be part of an old railway station—as I gather it is—and be contiguous to the railway station, in which case, if the hon. Member for Leith looks ahead, he will see that there is a later Amendment, which the Commission asked me to put in, which particularly takes care of such a case. It would be most unwise to give a dogmatic answer until I know into which category it would fall.
It also rests with the Commission, within certain limits, to make up their own minds what part of the road haulage property they propose to retain.

Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he is being discourteous? My hon. Friend has asked this question at least three times during the many stages of the debate and now, at this final stage, the Minister still does not know anything about it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Nobody acquainted with the normal practice of debate would regard it as discourtesy. I know that this question was asked earlier, and I have done my best to pick up most of the points which have been raised in the debates we have had throughout this Bill. I can claim without undue boasting that I take particular pains about personal, local and constituency problems which hon. Gentlemen may have to raise. That I cannot give a precise answer is because I believe in verifying my facts first, and I commend that as good advice to the hon. Member for Kilmamock (Mr. Ross) in his Parliamentary career.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Before we demonstrate in the Division Lobbies our dissatisfaction with the small increase which this Amendment provides, I should like to make one or two points about the failure of the Minister to answer the case made from this side. The Minister's case is that the number of vehicles which the Commission took over in 1948 should be increased by 25 per cent., and that was all to which they were entitled. All the way through the Minister has approached this matter quite from the wrong angle.
Rather than look at the position of the Commission today, and ask what was the minimum number of vehicles needed to be retained in order to maintain the minimum essential service, he has taken an arbitrary figure for 1948, and increased it by the arbitrary amount of 25 per cent. If he had looked at the essential services, and then decided which should be retained in the public interest, instead of thinking how few could be retained, he would have served the community better.
In the case of Pickfords, for instance, he says they are not the same as they were in 1948, because the Commission

placed various vehicles taken over from other undertakings into this organisation. But, because Pickfords is different in 1953 to 1948, because it is larger, the organisation is more efficiently run, it is more economical and it makes a profit today in serving the national interest, is that any reason why Pickfords should be broken up, disintegrated and the staff dissipated? There is no justification for breaking up Pickfords at this time simply because it has increased since 1948 and saying that it must return to the figure it had in 1948, plus 25 per cent.
Does the Minister realise that if the Commission decided, out of the 4,875 vehicles they will be allowed to retain, to retain any one of its national services, it 'would not be able to run any other service? If it retained the 3,000 vehicles Pickfords have today, it would only have 1,700 vehicles left to run all its other services. Or if it decided, instead of retaining Pickfords, to retain the smalls and parcels division that is giving a service throughout the country, it would only have a few vehicles left, because the parcels division uses 3,500 vehicles a day.
It is not just to allow the Commission only this small number of vehicles which makes certain that not a single one of the national services built up during the last five years can be retained. If they had been left with sufficient vehicles to maintain one or other of the services, Pickfords, parcels or trunk, it would have been sensible. To take an arbitrary figure, so that not one of the national services will be able to be maintained, is to destroy something which has been created with great energy and enthusiasm during the last five years.
The Minister has shown that he is determined to disrupt the Road Haulage Executive. He is not concerned with the interests of the trader or the user or with the national interest at all. All he is concerned with is returning as many of these vehicles as possible to private enterprise, irrespective of what will be left with the Commission and what services the Commission will be able to operate. In doing so he has ignored completely the advice of certain sections of industry—the advice of the Central Consultative Committee in the report they presented to him, and the advice of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
Tonight, the Minister claims this increase to five-fourths, which represents only 200 more vehicles, as a valuable concession which takes care, as he said, of the horse-drawn vehicles, about which we have already argued, and which takes care of Pickford's and the other matters which have been raised in debate. The Minister cannot be serious. He is deceiving himself. He is simply hiding behind this small concession in the hope

that the damage he is doing to the road services of the Road Haulage Executive will be overlooked and forgotten.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put. "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 231.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[5.11 a.m


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin


Alport, C. J. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lintstead, H. N.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fort, R.
Longden, Gilbert


Arbuthnot, John
Foster, John
Low, A. R. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Major D.


Banks, Col. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Barber, Anthony
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baxter, A. B.
Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bonnett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Birch, Nigel
Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bishop, F. P.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Black, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, A. E.


Bowen, E. R.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maudling, R.


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Mellor, Sir John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Molson, A. H. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Burden, F. F.A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Campbell, Sir David
Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Carr, Robert
Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Cole, Norman
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Osborne, C.


Colegate, W. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.



Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Partridge, E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Crarborne, Viscount
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Payton, J. W. W.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I. J.


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Powell, J. Enoch


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lennex-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)




Roper, Sir Harold
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Russell, R. S.
Storey, S.
Vosper, D. F.


Ryder, Capt. R.E. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Studholme, H. G.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Scott, R. Donald
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Shepherd, William
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Watkinson, H. A.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wellwood, W.


Snadden, W. McN.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Speir, R. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wood, Hon. R.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turner, H. F. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stevens, G. P.
Turton, R. H.
Major Conant and Mr. Wells.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Albu, A. H.
Foot, M. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Baird, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bartley, P.
Glanville, James
Mason, Roy


Bence, C. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hale, Leslie
Morley, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.


Bowden, H. W.
Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bowles, F. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Orbach, M.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.




Burton, Miss F. E.
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles


Carmichael, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Collick, P. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Darlign, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
 Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt.Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fienburgh, W.
McLeavy, F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)







Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Snow, J. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wigg, George


Sorensen, R. W.
Thornton, E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T.


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Swingler, S. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
West, D. G.
Wyatt, W. L.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. Taylor.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 232.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[5.20 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Alport, C. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, H. W.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Foster, John
Lindsay, Martin


Banks, Col. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Linstead, H. N.


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baxter, A. B.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Birch, Nigel
Gower, H. R.
McCallum, Major D.


Bishop, F. P.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Black, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bowen, E. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Markham, Major S. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hay, John
Ma lowe, A. A. H.


Bullard, D. G.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marples, A. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Heath, Edward
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Burden, F. F. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, Angus


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maudling, R


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Carr, Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, A. H. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hollis, M. C
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cole, Norman
Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmar


Colegate, W. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Horobin, I. M.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Craddock, Berasford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Illord, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hyde, Lt-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Partridge, E.


Donner, P. W.
Kaberry, D.
Peake, Rt. Hon O




Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepherd, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Tilney, John


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Turner, H. F. L


Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Snadden, W. McN.
Turton, R. H.


Pitman, I. J.
Soames, Capt. C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, R. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Profumo, J. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stevens, G. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Waterhouse, Capl. Rt. Hon. C.


Renton, D. L. M.
Storey, S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Webbs, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wellwood, W.


Roper, Sir Harold
Studholme, H. G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ryder, Capt. R E. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wills, G.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)



Scott, R. Donald
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Awbery, S. S.
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Baird, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Foot, M. M.
MacColl, J. E.


Bartley, P.
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Bence, C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMilan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell. Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blackburn, F.
Glanville, James
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowles, F. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Burke, W. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.


Carmichael, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Champion, A. J.
Holman. P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Chapman, W. D.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pannell, Charles


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Porter, G.


Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Prive, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Driberg, T. E. N
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.


Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
King, Dr. H. M
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.







Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pawns, N.)
Stross, Dr. Bamett
Wheeldon, W. E.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Ross, William
Swingler, S. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Royle, C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Short, E. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Simmom, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Wyatt, W. L.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wallace, H. W.
Yates, V. F.


Sparks, J. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Stewart, Miohael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Arthur Allen.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
It is now half-past five and it is quite a time since we considered the question of adjourning. Certain Amendments have been disposed of, and I think it would be right, proper and reasonable, that the House should terminate its labours. I trust that the Leader of the House will be agreeable to this course being taken. The traffic is about to move, and it is a convenient time for hon. Members who must use public transport to get home as soon as they can travel by it. Therefore, it is right, proper, and reasonable, especially in view of the manner in which the Leader of the House spoke at one o'clock, that we should now adjourn.

Mr. Crookshank: I must say that, considering the time, I was not entirely taken by surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Motion again. We have had some progress during the debate but, quite frankly, not as much as the Government had hoped. Perhaps in some ways it would be a pity to be weary of well-doing, because we have had a very good-tempered debate. I do not think I can remember when we sat so long and had such very good temper shown throughout. Also, I do not remember, through all the hours of the night before, seeing the House so well attended continuously on both sides, thus showing the importance of the debate, and the interest which hon. Members were taking in it.
We have considered what the best course would be to advise now. I think I am right in saying that as we are to resume later in the day, it is always more

convenient to begin again with the matter which is likely to raise considerable debate, rather than with a smaller though important point. I am not saying that any part discussed is not important, but some parts are more important than others.
I think it would be convenient for everyone, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree, if we did not at this Sitting embark on the big Amendment half-way down page 2, dealing with the transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares, but reserved that for the opening of our resumed debate. That would mean that we should not adjourn forthwith, but take the Amendment to leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert other words, and the Amendment to line 44. I hope that will be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman -[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and that he will therefore withdraw the Motion instead of discussing it further and take such time as is necessary for the two Amendments.

Mr. Morrison: I can speak again only by leave of the House, but I cannot agree to what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. At some time earlier, at what was considered, at any rate by hon. Members on this side of the House as a convenient hour, I urged the very course which the right hon. Gentleman is now urging. No notice was taken of that. The Amendments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman are of some substance and will take a little time to debate. In view of the hour and number of times which this Motion has been moved and, on the face of it, received by the right hon. Gentleman with some understanding and good temper, I cannot see why he


should persistently make the same speech and want to go on. We do not agree with the proposal he has made and must oppose it.

Mr. George Wigg: It is clear that the Leader of the House has not spent much time in the debate, otherwise he would not have made the statement he did. He said the House had been well attended. That is true so far as this side of the House is concerned. But there has not been a single speech from hon. Members opposite. For the major part of the time there have not been more than a dozen hon. Members present in the Chamber and most of them have been asleep. On one or two occasions Mr. Deputy-Speaker instructed that hon. Members on the Government side of the House should be wakened up so that they might take part in the deliberations.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Member states that there were no speeches made from this side. That is not correct, as I made a speech.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Wigg: It is true the hon. Member did speak, but that was at nine o'clock last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has spoken since then"]—I can only assume the hon. Member was speaking in his sleep—

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: In your sleep.

Mr. Wigg: There were other hon. Members opposite who were on their feet, but one can only assume they were passing in and out of the Chamber.
This behaviour of the Leader of the House is not peculiar. He always behaves in the same way. He is the worst Leader of the House since I have been a Member and in the memory of many hon. Members who have been here longer than I have. The right hon. Gentleman pays little attention to the proceedings. He comes into the Chamber for short periods and then makes the wildest statements, such as the claim he has just made. If we have not made all the progress he wants, the responsibility lies in a large measure with the Patronage Secretary. For example, it was absurd for the Patronage Secretary to move to report progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Only one of my hon. Friends was on his

feet and he was only going to speak for a minute or so.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear the point of order.

Lieutenant-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Gentleman to speak with a hot potato in his mouth? We cannot hear what he is saying.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if the effects of a cold make it sound as if I have a hot potato in my mouth, but at least there is one claim I can make; I am in no hurry. I do not drop the bricks that are sometimes dropped by the Front Bench opposite, and I certainly do not drop the bricks that are dropped by the Patronage Secretary. These debates are taking the form they are simply because of the tactics of the Patronage Secretary before the Easter Recess.
The point I am making is that four times tonight the Closure has been moved quite unnecessarily because, as the Leader of the House himself said, the debates have been good-tempered, they have been well-informed, there has been no obstruction. We have dealt with measures of great importance and the Patronage Secretary, if he had paid the House the courtesy of being present at the debates, would not have come in and moved the Closure.
Both the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House treat the House with much less courtesy than is the custom, because neither of them spends any great time in the House. They pop in for a few minutes and then they pop out again. Time and again in the debates tonight, and on previous occasions, the Patronage Secretary had not the least idea of what was happening, and an hour of our time has been wasted tonight because of his tactics.
I do not mind if the debate continues. It can go on all day and all tomorrow and all the day after. But in view of the weariness and the lack of interest shown by the party opposite in the proceedings of the House, and the fact that only a dozen or so have been in the


House and the majority of those have been asleep; in the interests of the health of the party opposite it would be wise to report Progress now so that before we resume at 2.30 this afternoon hon. Gentlemen, if they have not had the chance to get some sleep, could at least have gone out and bought some benzadrine tablets.

Mr. S. Silvennan: I do not think it would be right for the House to come to a conclusion upon this Motion without considering the position into which the Government have now brought the House of Commons. From anybody's point of view the piece of legislation with which we are concerned is regarded as of some importance. We are dealing with some valuable national property for which we paid a lot of money a year or two ago. It may be that the Government are right, though we do not think they are, in wishing to dispose of it now, but it is after all national property. We spent a lot of money to acquire it. It must be a matter of some importance whether we retain it or get rid of it in job lots at knock down prices.
5.45 a.m.
How are we dealing with the matter? We had the original Bill under a rigid Guillotine. The position in which the House of Commons finds itself this morning is due directly to the insistence of the Government in forcing the Measure through Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading under a Guillotine which did not even give the Government time to make the Amendments in their own Measure which they wanted to make. Because they did not do that the Bill went to another place in a form in which even the Government would not have it, and it came back to this House with these further Amendments. Many of them are of a most fundamental nature.
Two or three weeks ago before the Easter Recess the Government wanted to force the Bill through within a couple of hours sandwiched between other business. But the House would not have that. Four times during the night's debate the Government have been asked to deal with the matter in a more seemly and becoming way and on each occasion they have refused.
Ever since the last General Election, when the Government took the place of power on a minority vote, against the will of the majority of the electors, they have done everything in their power to bring Parliament and its procedure and conduct into public disrepute. What they are concerned with in these proceedings is not the denationalisation of road haulage. That is a secondary matter in their minds. What they wish to defeat is democracy and its operation in this country. They do not like it. They only like Parliamentary democracy when they can be sure that they can fool the majority of the electors to vote for them in General Elections.
As soon as it became clear that they could not do that then the proper thing to do was to seize power in any way which our constitution enabled them to do and then force through all the Measures which they knew the people did not want—to get as much out of it as they can for themselves and their friends and all the people who supplied their electoral machine with the necessary money, to do as much damage as they can to the national property in the shortest possible time no matter at what sacrifice of Parliamentary prestige and representative democracy.
This is, surely, something which the House ought not to tolerate. If there is anything which the House can do to hold up this Bill, to interfere with it, to prevent this job from being done until again the people have an opportunity of expressing their will upon it in the ballot box, then we ought to do it.

Mr. Ross: I appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider his position. It is now ten minutes to six, and in about 4¾ hours the Scottish Grand Committee is to meet. We have to go on to a discussion of another Bill dealing with hospital endowments—a matter of complexity and definite importance—and it will not be very easy for us to leave this Chamber and, after about an hour's rest, tackle that Bill.
It has been very noticeable that the Leader of the House has been shepherding the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has not shown his face in our deliberations this morning. The same thing applies to the Lord Advocate. I should like to think that the Secretary


of State for Scotland has spent the whole night getting a speech ready for the Scottish Grand Committee.
Surely the Leader of the House realises that there is a time to give way gracefully. Can he not, for once, do the right thing? Let us end our deliberations now. Let us start again this afternoon and give Scottish Members at least a little rest. I have long stopped appealing to the Sudeten Scotsman, the Patronage Secretary; we disowned him long ago; but surely the Leader of the House will give a certain amount of consideration to the importance which Scotland places upon the Scottish Grand Committee and the effectiveness of their debates. Will he withdraw from the position he has so far taken up?

Mr. Paget: I cannot help feeling that if the Leader of the House had graced us with a little more of his company he might have come to a different conclusion about this matter, if only out of sympathy for the right hon, Gentleman, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who have been in charge of this debate. As we have gone along two parallel debates have been going on at the same time, one conducted by the Member who had the Floor of the House and the other between the three Members of the Government Front Bench who were trying to ascertain what their Bill meant. Any coincidence in their views as to the meaning of their Bill appeared to be purely coincidental. It has been a most curious performance.
When the Adjournment was moved last time I warned the Leader of the House that we were not saving time by going on in these hours, because the longer we

went on the slower we got. That is not because the critics of the Bill, at this hour, naturally find it difficult to express themselves as concisely as they normally would, but because the Bill becomes steadily worse and worse handled. That has been our experience this morning. Surely it is time to call it a day, if only as an act of mercy to the Ministers in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Nally: I can see no point in making any appeal to the Leader of the House. What the House should do—certainly hon. Members opposite—is to see how far we have already abandoned the dignity of the House in discussing this Bill. I am not apportioning blaim, although I think it lies on the other side. Many hon. Members have been asleep in various places in the House while we have been discussing, through the long hours, vital measures which affect literally millions of our people.
The country is completely aware of the fact that hon. Members cannot discuss these things properly at this hour. Therefore, I would say to the Leader of the House that he can please himself. He can go ahead. If we finish now he still will not have rescued the dignity of the House, but he will at least have prevented this unfortunate and disgraceful spectacle, with which he apparently wishes to continue. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to adjourn now in view of the fact that apparently tonight we are expected to go through this disgraceful performance again.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 227: Noes, 245.

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[5.55 a.m.


Adams, Richard
Bowles, F. G. 
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Albu, A. H. 
Braddook, Mrs, Elizabeth
Crotland, C. A. B.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworlh) 
Brockway, A. F. 
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dalton, Rt. Han. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Baird, J.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bartley, P.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Deer, G.


Benoe, C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Delargy, H. J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Carmichael, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benign, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A
Donnelly, D. L.


Beswick, F.
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Coldrick, W.
Edelman, M.


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freds
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Cove, W G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)




Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William


Finch, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Short, E. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mclnnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Freeman, John (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silvarman, Sydney (Nelson)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MoNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.
Swingler, S. T.


Hannan, W.
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hargreaves, A.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.
Thornton, E.


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.
Timmons, J.


Hoy, J. H.
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn




Usborne, H. C.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells' Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles
West, D. G.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargitar, G. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pearson, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wigg, George


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Porter, G.
Willey, F. T.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wyatt, W. L.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. F.


King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, A. C.
Colegate, W. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bower, E. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braine, B. R.
Cranborne, Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Deedes, W. F.


Banks, Col. C.
Bullard, D. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Barber, Anthony
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Burden, F. F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Donner, P. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Doughty, C. J. A


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Carr, Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cary, Sir Robert
Erroll, F. J.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Channon, H.
Fell, A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Finlay, Graeme


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fisher, Nigel


Bishop, F. P.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Black, C. W.
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, C.







Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgert, John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, John
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Low, A. R. W.
Russell, R. S.


Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D, (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McAdden, S. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimond, J.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Snadden, W. MoN.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Speir, R. M.


Hart, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeonshire, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major S. F.
Stevens, G. P.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marplos, A. E.
Steddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.
Studholme, H, G.


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hirst Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hope, Lord John
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Turner, H. F. L.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Viant, S. P.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Kerr, H. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wellwood, W.


Lambert, Hon. C.
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croyden, E.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Profumo, J. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor



Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and Mr. Wells.


Lindsay, Martin
Renton, D. L. M.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend and myself both heard the Minister of Transport shouting "Aye" when the voices were collected and then vote in the "No" Lobby. Could it be arranged that the Division records be amended accordingly?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is too late. Any query about an hon. Member's vote must be taken before the figures are announced from the Chair.

Mr. Benn: Further to that, until the figures are announced it is impossible

to calculate whether an hon. Member has voted.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes the question arises when an hon. Member gives his voice in one direction and goes into the other Lobby and that matter can be taken up before the figures are announced from the Chair.

Lords Amendment: Leave out lines 33 to 37, and insert:
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this proviso, the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over which belong to each of the three following categories, that is to say:—



(a) vehicles (whether motor vehicles or trailers) specially constructed to carry abnormal indivisible loads;
(b) motor vehicles (of whatever character) which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be regarded as special vehicles constructed for special purposes other than the carriage of abnormal indivisible loads;
(c) other motor vehicles,
does not exceed thirteen-tenths of the total weight unladen of the vehicles so owned belonging to those categories respectively.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out from "proviso," to "following," and to insert:
in the case of vehicles belonging to each of the two.
I think it very regrettable that we should now have to discuss the very complicated Amendment which comes from the Lords and to which we have put down two Amendments. It would be for the convenience of the House if the two Amendments relating to this Lords Amendment were discussed together.

Mr. Speaker: That would be very convenient if the hon. Member is referring to the Amendment to line 2 and the Amendment to leave out "(c) other motor vehicles, does," and insert:
the total weight unladen of the vehicles so made over shall.

Mr. Davies: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The House will recall that during the Committee stage there was considerable discussion concerning the Clause to which the Lords Amendment relates—to Clause 4 (2, ii). This paragraph provided that the vehicles which the Commission could retain should be of comparable size, nature and quality with the vehicles taken over. It was considered by the Committee that this was far too rigid a proviso and that there should be some flexibility. After considerable discussion, the Minister agreed that he would give further consideration to the matter and see whether there could be some differentiation as between different categories of vehicles which the Commission were allowed to retain.
As a consequence, the Lords Amendment is now before us and provides that whereas the vehicles which the Commission retain—the 4,875 vehicles we were discussing on the last two Amendments—have to be divided into three cate-

gories, heavy vehicles carrying indivisible loads, special vehicles and other motor vehicles. Whereas they will not all have to be the same size and nature as they were in January, 1948, there can be tolerance and flexibility as between each of the three categories; that is to say, whereas the limit of each is fixed at 30 per cent, above pre-nationalisation holdings, the overall limit is 25 per cent. If the Commission wish to retain more than the 125 per cent. in one or two of the categories they will be permitted to do so up to 130 per cent. as long as they keep the overall total of the three categories within the 125 per cent. That means a flexibility of 5 per cent.
I know that this is a very complicated matter and it is unfortunate that we have to discuss it as this early hour of the morning. To put it very briefly, it means that the Commission can choose up to the extent of 5 per cent. additional vehicles which it holds in each category, and reduce the number in the other categories. If it decides to have 130 per cent. of the 1948 vehicles as special vehicles, then it would have to reduce either the indivisible loads, or the other vehicles, by that 5 per cent.
We consider that this is still far too rigid and that it is unjustifiable for the Minister to impose such rigidity on the Commission. If the Commission is to be allowed to retain nearly 5,000 vehicles, and is limited to that 5,000, why cannot it have which vehicles it wants? Why must it be fixed by the Minister that the Commission can only have within the small margin the same number of special vehicles, and other vehicles, and not be able to decide which types it is going to have? The small amount of tolerance shown is insufficient.
There is no need for fixing the categories in this way. It should be left to the Commission to determine for itself. Why does the Minister want to reproduce the exact pattern of 1948? Since then, there has been a great number of changes in the road haulage industry, and had nationalisation not come about there would have been changes. There have been what one might call natural developments, and the types of vehicles and the types of traffic on the roads have developed with increased production and the shift-over in certain lines of production.
This insistence of the Minister on the pattern of 1948 means that he is taking no notice at all of any changes in the demand for transport which have occurred since 1948. Furthermore, why is it that the Commission must have its hands tied behind its back in this way? Why must the Commission be so handicapped in competing with private enterprise? Throughout the debates the Minister has insisted that, with denationalisation, he was leaving the Commission in a position to compete and has said that there would be competition between the Commission and private enterprise. But here he is imposing a restriction on the Commission which will prevent it from competing freely.
In the section of heavy haulage which the Commission is allowed to retain, there may be greater demand, and it could run more efficiently by increasing its heavy haulage vehicles at the expense of others. But, by the Amendment from the Lords, the Commission could only increase them by 5 per cent., and correspondingly reduce the number of other vehicles which it holds. The same argument could apply to special vehicles, or any vehicles of the other categories. This is a handicap to the Commission. Why cannot it be left free to concentrate its vehicles into its large-scale organisation and decide whether it wants to concentrate its vehicles on the parcels traffic, or on the main trunk services, in Pickfords organisation, or in some other way?
6.15 a.m.
In this way, as we pointed out on the previous Amendment, the Commission will not be left with enough vehicles to run any of these services efficiently and economically. It will not have enough vehicles to carry on the Pickfords organisation and other services, or the parcels services and any other adequate services. But if it decides that it is more economical and efficient to run one of these services, it will not be allowed to do so because its hands will be tied by the division between categories which is made so rigid.
We therefore suggest in our Amendments that the flexibility should be far greater. We accept that the vehicles, as regards the special vehicles—that is, those specially constructed to carry abnormal, indivisible loads—and the special vehicles constructed for other than the carriage

of abnormal and indivisible loads, should be restricted to the 13/10ths and that they should not be allowed to increase their number above the 13/10ths, which allows them that 5 per cent. tolerance which the Minister himself has permitted.
But we suggest in our Amendment that the other motor vehicles should be left free. That is to say, if for the abnormal indivisible loads or for the special vehicles the Commission decided to substitute the other motor vehicles—that is, the ordinary load carriers and general haulage vehicles—it should be allowed to do so, provided, of course, that the total did not go beyond the amount which it was permitted. At least, the Commission would not be tied to dividing them into the three categories. It could absorb the first two categories—the abnormal indivisible load carriers and the special vehicles; it could absorb them as ordinary motor vehicles and thereby would have a far greater flexibility. I do not think we are asking too much from the Minister in putting down these Amendments. All we are trying to do is to give the Commission a little more flexibility and enable it to compete on a fairer basis.
There has been some dispute in the other place as to what the Commission wants. I should like the Minister to say what is the attitude of the Commission towards this. In the Lords, the spokesman for the Government stated on several occasions—I recall no fewer than five times in the discussion on this Amendment—that this restriction by categories was acceptable to the Commission, that they favoured it and were satisfied that it would work. The spokesman from the Opposition benches challenged the Minister on this and stated that he had consulted the Commission. Lord Swinton said in one instance that he was informed authoritatively by the Minister that on no occasion had the Commission made any representation to him or given him any information that this division into categories would not work. He was sure that it is acceptable to the Commission, although not as acceptable as having a complete monopoly.
The Opposition made several similar statements on several other occasions in the other place. Our information—this is also stated by our spokesman in the other place—is that the Commission has made it clear to the Minister on more


than one occasion that this strait-jacket Clause was not acceptable to it and could only make it more difficult for it to meet its public transport needs.
We should like to know from the Minister tonight what is the position as regards the Commission in this matter. Did they agree to this rigid Clause which is imposed upon them and this limitation of the number of vehicles and types they will be allowed to operate, or have they made representations to him? We think that the Minister owes it to the House to make this position clear. The Minister earlier indicated that he had something to say on this matter and we look forward to hearing him. During the debate in Committee he stated he would consult the Commission, and he has. We should be informed of the results. I ask the Minister to give due consideration to this Amendment to the Lords Amendment and to tell us why it cannot be accepted, if he is unable to do so.
Why cannot the Commission be given a little more flexibility in this matter? Why must it be so rigid? Why tie the Commission to the same pattern as set in 1948, although there has been substantial change in the industry, in the type of vehicles, and the traffic offering since then?

Mr. Lindgren: I wish briefly to support the Amendment, mainly because we are anxious to hear the Minister, particularly in regard to the explanation there might be of the statements which, we believe, were incorrectly made in another place; statements which were distinctly misleading to the discussions which took place there.

Mr. Callaghan: False.

Mr. Lindgren: I prefer to be a little more restrained and class them as misleading.
The whole trend of the Bill is that, deliberately and consciously, there has been a restrictive attitude by the Minister to the Transport Commission, which cramps their style in every activity they might desire to undertake to make the best of the resources still left to them to operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) emphasized, and I do so again, that much has been said about competition. Yet, with

every Lords Amendment brought forward, the Commission, instead of being put in a position in which they can compete, are being placed in one of disadvantage with the free competitors they are operating against. That is not competition.
The Minister is saying there shall be competition, but, as far as the British Transport Commission is concerned, he is saying they shall be put at a disadvantage before they enter into competition with those who are purchasing some of their assets. I hope the Minister's statement will be free, frank, and fully forthcoming.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hopes of both hon. Gentlemen will, I think, be rapidly fulfilled. I shall certainly give some answer on all the points raised, not least on the attitude of the Commission. I hope I may say that it does confront one with problems of some embarrassment, which would be common to any Government, if information or correspondence between the Commission or any similar body and the responsible Minister passes, by some means, into hands other than the Minister's.
I was for a long time chairman of a number of party committees in opposition. It would certainly not have entered my head to acquire correspondence which passed, for example, when I was Chairman of the Conservative Aviation Committee between the Chairman of B.O.A.C. the Chairman of B.E.A., and the noble Lord, who was then the Minister of Civil Aviation. I hope I may be allowed to develop this without any interruption, as I am anxious not to suggest that anyone in this House did set out to acquire any such correspondence. All I know is that some information has reached certain hon. Members of what purports to be the attitude of the Commission to certain aspects of the Bill.
In nationalised organisations, when the chairman may be a member of another place there might be problems—though I must say Lord Hurcomb has been scrupulous from start to finish not to allow his position as a member of the House of Lords to create any embarrassment. Any corporation or nationalised body has a rather difficult political relationship with a Government of the day


who may not approve of the system of nationalisation but, nonetheless, deal with it, and an Opposition which is politically sympathetic to the conception of nationalised corporations, but not responsible from a Ministerial angle for what is happening.
All these things raise problems which, unless there is good taste and discretion shown on all sides, may get us into awkward situations. I thought it necessary to say that at the start.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The House will remember that during the debates on the Committee stage of the Bill, on 10th December last the Minister said, in reply to a statement I had made:
I have consulted the Commission and they agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). They would like me to accept the Amendment—
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) interrupted and said:
We have not consulted them.
The Minister then said:
There is no reason why hon. Members of the Opposition should not do so …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1953; Vol. 509, c. 470.]
The Minister must therefore accept the fact that we are, on his own admission, entitled to consult the Commission, and if information comes our way we are entitled to use it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not going back on what I said. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that statement which, for the moment, I had forgotten. But there is a good deal of difference between asking the Commission for some opinion and actually seeing copies of documents which pass between the Commission and responsible Ministers.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: We see letters from trade associations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member would be revealing his ignorance of this matter if he compared this matter with letters between trade associations and Members of Parliament.
I am not making a great deal of this, except to say that it would have presented great difficulty unless good taste and discretion were shown, and I have not had the slightest complaint about the

behaviour of the Commission in this or any other matter from start to finish.

Mr. Callaghan: We certainly accept the view of the Minister about the delicacy of the relationship between the Minister and the nationalised body, and that the Commission have to be careful in their correspondence. But I would ask him what is his view of the relationship of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill to the House—in this case another place—when he deliberately on five occasions misrepresents the view of the case.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait until this story unfolds itself a little further. I am going to pick up certain comments made in another place and relate them to observations made to me by Lord Hurcomb. It would be helpful to hon. Members who do not understand all this if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would restrain his impatience. Otherwise it is liable to put one off one's stride when discussing a matter which does affect the dignity and position of other people, and I am anxious not to give an error of fact or of bad taste in this matter.
6.30 a.m.
There is one other thing I must say which is also relevant to what I am going to say on this Amendment. Earlier in the course of these debates in Parliament, on one occasion I laid in the Library of the House a copy of a confidential communication which I had received from the Commission. I did it for this reason. I was anxious to quote the view of the Commission on a certain matter of strong political and railway importance, the abolition of the Railway Executive.
Lord Hurcomb, who had expressed the view that the Railway Executive should be abolished, said, "If you read any part of my letter about that to the House of Commons I hope you will also read the other paragraphs." I think I started to read the other paragraphs, but there was rather too much, and I said in reply to an interjection that I would lay the letter in the Library. However, I was at pains to say that this must not be taken as a precedent because there is a great deal of confidential correspondence which obviously it would be impossible for any Minister to lay in the Library of the House or before any body, unless it was


sent for in the proper way by a Select Committee or some other proper body.
We are dealing here with Amendments to a Lords Amendment which is itself designed to give greater freedom of choice to the Commission in selecting vehicles which they wish to retain. I was constantly urged to give greater tolerance to the Commission in the vehicles that they could retain, and it was argued that the wording on page 7 of the Bill was unduly rigid and that greater flexibility was needed—the second part of the proviso beginning at line 33 reads:
… the vehicles so made over make up, or would, if all were made over to the same company, make up …
In the debate on 9th December, I said I would look again at this to see whether we could not give greater flexibility. We decided on the Amendment on the Order Paper which, after this Amendment has been disposed of, I shall have the pleasure of moving. My Amendment divides up the vehicles into three categories and subjects the Commission to the overall limit of five-fourths with a tolerance of 5 per cent. in each of these categories.
The purpose of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman would be to remove ordinary load carriers from the limitations placed on the freedom of choice of the Commission in selecting vehicles up to overall tonnage. The effect, therefore, would be that the 5 per cent. tolerance would apply only to vehicles in our Government Amendment in the categories (a) and (b) and not to the vehicles in category (c). The Commission, therefore, instead of being limited where ordinary load carriers are concerned, to a maximum of 30 per cent—25 per cent. plus 5 per cent.—above the tonnage of this type formerly owned by the railways, could make over for this type of work all the 5,000 vehicles allowed to them.
I have always made it plain from the start that although the Government were anxious to meet the Commission where we were thought to be unduly inflexible, we could not possibly allow the great resources that the Commission will continue to enjoy to be devoted solely to one branch of transport, which would give them a preponderant share in whichever branch they chose to enter, if they chose to devote all their resources to one category.
It was said that we would divide the vehicles which the Commission could retain in three categories, give them flexibility in each category to a limit of 5 per cent.—that is 130 per cent. instead of 125 per cent.—provided the overall figure is not more than 125 per cent. We could not go further than that, or reduce the number of categories to two, or abolish the categories altogether, because then we would find ourselves in one important field of transport, whichever the Commission might choose to make it, faced with a Commission with, in our view, altogether too large a share for the purpose for which the Bill was put forward.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I know that the Minister wants to be fair. He realises that our Amendment would still limit categories (a) and (b) to 13/10ths. Therefore, they cannot have a preponderance in either of these two categories. They are limited. In the third category which is that of ordinary load carrier, or general haulage, if they put all their vehicles into that, the maximum they could have would be 4.875. If the Commission, which possesses 40,000 vehicles, is left with only that number and all of them are used for general haulage, they will not have a preponderance. The other 35.000 vehicles will have been sold off. In addition there are all these vehicles which possess A and B licences with which they would be competing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps to use the word "preponderance" is an unintentional exaggeration, but they would have an unduly large share which would enable them to have a parcels service without regard to the importance that parcels may have to all sorts of other ordinary road hauliers either in providing material for loads or in making up loads on which so many of them depend. The Government gave a great deal of consideration to this matter and came to the conclusion that it would give them an unduly large share of ordinary load carriers if they decided to put the whole of their allotted amount into that particular category.
I should be misleading the House if I held out any hope that we could vary the proportion of the three categories which are in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: Not a single concession.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Indeed there has been earlier.

Mr. Callaghan: One small one.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We might have had another opportunity if we had made more progress. I make no promise in advance, however.
I should like to deal with the attitude of the Commission. Naturally the Commission dislike all restrictions. First, they dislike the dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive, and I should not blame them if I were on the Commission. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to have a Disposal Board. It is asking too much of human nature, however loyal the people might be, that the task of dissolving the Executive should be placed solely in the hands of those who do not want it to happen. They do not like the disappearance of the Road Haulage Executive. They do not like any restriction on the vehicles they are allowed to retain. They want to have the whole 40,000.

Mr. Popplewell: They want the same opportunity as private enterprise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They will have the same opportunity.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that they will be free to enter into the market subject to the licensing authority, like anybody else.

Mr. Popplewell: Subject to restriction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Like anybody else. I use the words of the hon. Gentleman—subject to the restrictions of the licensing authority. I assure hon. Members that that is right, but I should be straying far away from the Amendment if I dealt with that point in any greater detail.
I was dealing with the attitude of the Commission. They do not like the disappearance of the Road Haulage Executive and they do not like any restriction on the number of vehicles they can retain. That being so, they would dislike most of all really rigid restrictions. They dislike the restrictions which were in the Bill as it left this House on 17th February. On page 7 there are two provisos, and the effect of the second would

be that the vehicles to be retained would, if all were made over to the same company:
make up, a fleet of vehicles comparable, as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.
That means that the fleet they retain would have to be comparable so far as possible to the fleets they inherited from the old railway companies. They disliked that very much indeed. To a lesser extent they dislike the tolerance we are now giving them. They think it is an improvement, but they would like to see it go further.
On a number of occasions I have explained the reasons why we cannot go further, and I am not misquoting the Commission when I say that they prefer the tolerance we are now giving them to the intolerance—as they thought it—of the Bill as it left the House. They may say that there is a different degree of intolerance but they think the new proposals are an improvement. They took some exception to the suggestion that this tolerance was, in their view, workable. When the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, in another place made certain statements there Lord Hurcomb said that he would be happy if I could make it clear that while the Commission have never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable they had never accepted it as workable.
At that time I had never heard from the Commission that they regarded the suggested tolerance as unworkable, and I felt wholly justified in telling Lord Swinton that that was so. When Lord Hurcomb expressed some disquietude about what Lord Swinton was supposed to have said he agreed that it would fairly reflect his views if I said that up to that point, while it was true that the Commission had never said that it was unworkable, they had never accepted it as workable.

Mr. Callaghan: What was the date of that conversation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It might have been the 18th or 19th March. I received the letter on the 20th. I cannot be absolutely certain about that date. At any rate, there is no dispute between the two parties concerned. Lord Hurcomb saw me write it out, and he and I have


a mutual confidence. On 19th March. Lord Hurcomb wrote that the Commission do not accept the view that these proposals of the Bill were satisfactory or in any reasonable sense workable, and in a later letter to me he said that what may or may not be practicable in the sense of not being completely impossible may be a matter of opinion; but the implication that the Amendment had ever been regarded by them as entirely workable and extremely acceptable was not correct.
I said I would certainly put that straight, but that if another impression had been given in another place it was entirely my fault because I said—and it was perfectly true when I said it—that the Commission had never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable. I have always said that they disliked any restrictions, but they have never at that time said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable.
I hope that makes the position quite plain, but if anybody wants to create difficulties between the Minister and the Chairman of a large public body I would ask him, if he ever hopes to succeed to the seat of authority again, to remember that he himself will be in a position demanding some delicacy and tact. That might have a certain hampering effect on any observations that hon. Members opposite might wish to make.
I am ready to answer any further questions, within limits, and to deal with the question of the number of vehicles, in each of these categories, that this greater tolerance would allow the Commission to retain, but rather than weary the House with a lot of figures I will wait until I am expressly asked about them.

Mr. Hargreaves: I should like to tell the House what was said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in another place when the Lords Amendment was first moved there. He said—if I may paraphrase it—that he understood that it was not only administratively quite possible, but was extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission. The suggestion for a prescribed form of rigid strait-jacket for the vehicles within the control of the Commission was not pressed, and the whole House agreed to

the acceptance of that proposition on the basis of the phrase to which I have drawn the Minister's attention.
I suggest to the Minister that if he had made a statement of that kind in this House, he would have jumped with alacrity to the Box at the first possible opportunity to make clear that he had misled the House and, in some sense, induced the acceptance of an Amendment which otherwise would have been open to very strong criticism. The Minister ought to accept the fact that another place dealt with this Amendment in this particular way by reason of the use of the phrase to which I have called his attention.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In fairness to Lord Swinton, perhaps I may say a further word. "Administratively possible"—yes. Those in the Ministry of Transport and others with experience in this field are quite satisfied that it is administratively possible. "Extremely acceptable" went a good deal further. It was to put that right that I made the observations I did make. When I first told Lord Swinton that the Commission had never said that this would be unworkable, that was true. While it is true that the Commission had never said that the proposed tolerance was unworkable, they had never accepted it as workable.
When this was followed up by a letter in much stronger language from Lord Hurcomb, I should at once have brought it to Lord Swinton's notice. That was my fault. I did not do so, and he did not have an opportunity to put it right. Had he had the opportunity, I know that he would have taken it with alacrity. I have, as some hon. Members know, a good deal of work, and I thought I would make that quite straight when it came to our own House. I did not think of the awkward situation in which Lord Swinton might have been placed entirely through my error.

Mr. Callaghan: With the observations that fell from the Minister in the concluding part of his original speech, I fully agree. Tact is needed in the relationships between Ministers and nationalised industries. It is not a good start to your relationships to assume its working to be inefficient without taking the trouble to


see what they were doing. Nor is it conducive to tactful and good relationships to prepare Bills that deal with their future without consulting those in charge of the nationalised industries, to see what observations they have to make about them.
All these facts I fully concede to the Minister. I am glad that experience of 12 months of office is teaching him that one has to have great regard for human relationships in these matters. While tact is necessary between the Minister and the nationalised industries, that does not mean that legitimate differences that exist between the Ministers and the nationalised industries should be obscured, blurred, or, worse, should be hidden from the public eye by a Minister failing to represent the nationalised industry's point of view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who has spoken and thought a great deal about this problem, has consistently said—I think I am paraphrasing him correctly—that it is the job of nationalised industries and of Ministers to try to live together, and certainly that should be their first consideration, but in the last analysis there is no reason why they should not have differences and should not express those differences. If that doctrine, which has often been enunciated by my right hon. Friend, had been carried out by the Minister fully on this occasion he would not have got into these difficulties with the nationalised industries.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I add one other thing?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I might finish this, because I am being careful in what I say, as the Minister was trying to be. It should have been the Minister's first duty when there was a substantial difference of opinion between them, which he knew to exist, and which occurred in the Committee stage in another place, to have taken the immediate and first opportunity of correcting it before the matter was raised again at a later stage, that is to say, during the Report stage, and he failed in his duty in not doing that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully recognise that it was my error that it was not corrected in another place, and it was very unfair on Lord Swinton that any other impression should be given. I did tell

Lord Hurcomb myself at the time that I would make quite plain in the House of Commons what his view was. I decided to do that and told Lord Hurcomb I would do it long before the hon. Gentleman asked me across the Table, three weeks ago, whether I would do it. I had already arranged with Lord Hurcomb to do that. I must point out that the Commission, like all other public bodies, have their annual reports in which they are entitled to say what they like, and in which they can make comments on the effect of Government policy on their activities. I do not doubt that the report of the Commission will have some reference to this Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: That, of course, is true, but I do not think it will help the statement of the Commission's case, if the Minister fails to represent them, as he admits he has done, if, six months after the Bill is through and has become an Act, they are able to conduct an inquest on it and to say how badly the Minister failed to represent them on this issue. I do not wish to rub this point into the Minister very much, except to say that this is not the first occasion on which there have been allegations and feelings that the Commission's point of view has been inadequately represented by him on this Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Oh, no.

Mr. Callaghan: Oh, yes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Lord Hurcomb does not say that.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not saying what Lord Hurcomb has said. I am saying that there is a feeling on this side of the House that we have had to drag things out of the Minister, who has acted with less candour than we would expect, about a body which does not issue its own statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should be very surprised if Lord Hurcomb echoed those views. I am betraying no confidence when I say he has always told me that I have treated him with the greatest candour and frankness, and that I have never hesitated to say, when it seemed appropriate, what his views were. Indeed, at the start of our long debates on the Bill I began by saying, in very rough language, what their general view was about the road haulage proposals as a whole.

The Attorney-General: Withdraw.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall do nothing of the sort. The Attorney-General mutters "Withdraw," but there is not the slightest doubt—

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman never does. He is never wrong. He never withdraws.

Mr. Callaghan: At least, the Minister has admitted that he was wrong this morning, and I am coming on to some of the observations he has made. As the Minister seems inclined to challenge this, I will quote just one other example to him of why the Opposition think he is wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Surely this is going very wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Well, I think it is.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not your view that the Minister should be allowed to make strictures on the conduct of the Opposition, as he did at the beginning of his speech, and the Opposition to be denied the right of replying on this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This particular point has been discussed for a very long time and it has little to do with the Amendment before us.

Mr. Callaghan: I very much regret that that view was not expressed earlier, when the Minister started making his speech. It would certainly have made things more easy in one way, although more difficult in another.
What is at stake here is the good faith of the Minister and Lord Swinton in relation to their conduct on this Clause. It would be a great pity if the Amendment we are discussing were to pass from our notice with their good faith still under a cloud on this issue. The Minister has admitted that he was wrong, but that does not remove from our control examination of the problem with which he said he was confronted, namely, the embarrassment of communications passing into hands other than those of Ministers. He was good enough to say that he did not think we set out to get this letter which

was sent to him and of course that is true.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Enfield West (Mr. Ernest Davies) quoted earlier, in response of an earlier exchange during the Committee stage in the House, the Minister said that he was quite ready for the Opposition to ask the Commission what their views were on certain matters and to secure those views. He does not withdraw from that, indeed he has reinforced it. Those views came to the Opposition in the form of a letter that had been sent to the Minister; that I think should not have been done. I think it would have been preferable if that had not been done. I must say I have not seen the letter and no one in this House has seen this letter. It was apparently seen by one of our spokesmen in another place.
I think what the Commission should have done was to have paraphrased the letter they sent to the Minister when they were asked for their views in this matter. Then there would have been no feeling by the Minister that he was being embarrassed in this way. That seems one way in which it could have been done. The alternative, which I prefer, would be that they should issue a public statement and make their position quite clear.
I regret very much that they have not issued a statement on this matter indicating that Lord Swinton, on nine occasions in the House of Lords, denied the accusation that was made that the Commission were not satisfied with what was done. That was, in fact, misleading the House of Lords about the position of the Commission in relation to this Clause in an extremely serious way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) referred to the first statement of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that this Amendment was extremely acceptable. On the next occasion on which he spoke on this subject he said:
I find I was perfectly accurate in the statements.
On the next occasion on which he spoke he said that the proposal
is acceptable to the Commission.
On the fourth occasion he said:
I am assured that both the Commission and the Ministry agree that it is … an extremely acceptable variation and measure of tolerance.


On the fifth occasion he said:
both the Commission and the Ministry are satisfied.
Even when we get to the Report stage the noble Lord is still telling the House of Lords, quite wrongly, that the attitude of the Commission is that
on no occasion has the Transport Commission made any representations to him"—
the Minister—
or given any information to him that this division into categories will not work … I am sure it is acceptable to the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 130–142.]
I am sorry, that was during the Committee stage. I ask the Minister, what remedy does he think a nationalised industry ought to have in circumstances such as these, where their view has been so completely misrepresented? I am certain that the noble Lords in another place who pressed the Government on this matter because they had asked the Commission for their views and had been acquainted with their views were doing a public service by digging out the real facts. I much regret that it took so much prising before we could get the facts from the Minister for the first time today.
Let us remember that this issue was originally raised in the Lords on 10th March, which is nearly six weeks ago; and that it is not until about six weeks later that the Minister thinks it worth while to make a statement.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I told Lord Hurcomb that, at the appropriate moment, at the proper stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, I would make the position clear. Next, the hon. Member asks what remedy the Commission has. That is through the mouth of the Minister, in whose frankness and candour in this field the Commission has every confidence.

Mr. Callaghan: When I referred to the Minister's behaviour on an earlier part of the Bill I was ruled out of order, and I cannot speak of that. But this seems to be a clear case of the Minister being candid six weeks after the event has taken place; and he is candid only at the point where discussion is taken up at seven o'clock in the morning; and, in view of the obvious inaccuracies, the

Minister could have taken an early opportunity of making a statement after Question time, or in response to a Question, instead of allowing this misrepresentation of the Commission's position to go on for five or six weeks.
I would refer to only one other matter, and that is the peculiar utterance of the Minister that the concessions in this Bill are apparently dependent on the Opposition's behaviour.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a breakfast-time joke.

Mr. Callaghan: Then we must accept his peculiar sense of humour, but some of us take this Bill as a very serious matter. We have been labouring on it for some 12 months trying to knock it into some decent shape, and we believe that our Amendments are worthy of consideration on their merits and that they should be considered in that way.
So far as the nationalised industries are concerned, and in the case of this nationalised industry in particular, the Minister made a singularly unfortunate mistake in the contempt which he expressed for the work they were doing at the beginning of his term of office. For months, without seeing what work they were doing, he made pronouncements about that work, and I say that if he had behaved with more tact at the beginning of his term of office some of the servants of the nationalised industries, and certainly hon. Members of the Opposition would have more regard for his sense of fairness now.

Mr. Percy Collick: The Minister spent a good deal of time explaining what he thought should be the relationship between nationalised corporate bodies and himself and what he subsequently described as the delicacy of the relationships between boards of nationalised industries, and the Opposition and the Minister. I should like just to put this point; if he is so exact as obviously he wishes the House to be on this important matter of the relationship of the nationalised boards and the Minister, then he must accept that there is a greater obligation upon the Minister to make known to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity important matters upon which the House is concerned. Surely that must follow.
My criticism of the Minister on a former occasion was of what I regarded as his failure to do that. I refer in particular to when the Commission had made known their view to the Minister that they were in favour of the abolition of the Railway Executive, and that information was withheld from the House by the Minister for a very long time. The Minister will not deny that, because it is a simple statement of fact. Therefore, does he not accept the view that when bodies like the Transport Commission tell him of important matters, such as their view on the abolition of the Railway Executive, there is an obligation on him to make it known to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly not. I am at present deeply engaged in talks with members of the Commission in regard to railway reorganisation and, on the assumption that the Bill becomes law, on how the part of the Bill relating to decentralisation of the railways is to be carried out. Is it seriously suggested that I should, from day to day, convey to the House of Commons the views of the Commission in advance of their making a decision on them? There are many things which this affects, and no Minister could conduct his Department under any such ludicrous obligation.

Mr. Collide: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not seriously say that to the House. He knows perfectly well that the Bill contains a provision that when the Commission prepare their scheme, it has to be laid before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "When it is ready."] Exactly; when it is ready. No one would expect the Minister to come to the House and tell us what all his conversations are with the Commission. The Minister knows me well enough to know that I should not suggest such a thing. But when the Commission tell him such a vital matter as that they are in favour of the abolition of the Railway Executive and he knows that that is a matter on which the House is concerned, the obligation was clearly upon him to make it known to the House as early as he possibly could.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not wish to delay the House unduly at this early

hour, but this is a matter of some constitutional importance and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, it is a matter in which I have taken some interest.
Two statements by Lord Swinton are of importance in connection with the Amendment which the House is now considering, and I should point out that eight days passed between them. The first was on 10th March, and he said:
Before I accepted this Amendment"—
which is commonly known as the "strait-jacket" Clause—
I ascertained that it is not only administratively quite possible, but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1168.]
Eight days afterwards, when the Minister must have seen the report and other people also must have seen it, he said:
My Lords, I do not think the House was in the least misled last time as to what were the facts. I have checked up, and I find that I was perfectly accurate in the statements I made to the Committee—and I am not surprised that I was, because I got them from the admirable Ministry which has supplied me with instructions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 181, c. 130.]
I do not wish to belabour that point too much, because my hon. Friends have dealt with it adequately. But there were eight days between these two statements. It turns out, on the admission of the Minister himself, who has now been very frank about it, that they were both unjustified and that they were not true.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not quite so. I stick to the view that at the time Lord Swinton made his statement the Commission had never said the proposed tolerance was unworkable. My failure was in not passing on the later letter to Lord Swinton so that he could have made a correcting statement.

Mr. Morrison: The statement of the noble Lord devolves, as the extracts go on. He gets a little less extreme as he proceeds and apparently is very gradually moving towards accuracy. But this first statement was not what the Minister said about this matter being workable or not. The Commission was alleged to have said it was not only administratively quite possible, but extremely acceptable to the Transport Commission. Eight days afterwards, Lord Swinton reaffirmed this on the authority of this


admirable Ministry. I would not wish to say it was otherwise because I was once Minister of Transport myself. I found it admirable, and I hope it is equally admirable now.
It is profoundly important that there should be a good relationship between the Minister and a public corporation. I agree it is desirable they should work together and that there should be mutual good faith, mutual trust, and mutual co-operation. But when that public authority is being divested of an important part of its undertaking and when limitations are being placed on it, as to how much it can own and how much it can continue to hold, then it is the right of the public authority to let the public know what its views are, just as it is the right of the Minister to let the public know his views.
In the case of the process of putting restrictions upon private enterprise or of taking over their undertakings, they were rightly absolutely free to say what they liked. They have been apparently free to discuss political matters of a further character than that. The Minister was in danger of challenging the right of the public corporations to make their views known. It is in the public interest they should have the right to make them known, and known to Parliament promptly and in good time. Let the discussions be conducted without personal bitterness between the Minister and the public corporations. If the Minister

is intending to suppress the views of the public corporations or to discourage them from expressing them, he is acting contrary to the public interest and spirit, and unconstitutionally.

There is nothing shocking about occasional differences of views publicly expressed between the Minister and a public corporation, as long as there is mutual courtesy I beg the Minister not to assume there is something wrong if it becomes apparent that he has been inaccurately informed. I hope very much that this will be a lesson to him and his colleagues who deal with these public corporations, including the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, who takes a great deal of interest in these matters, but who does not seem to be very active in the legislative stages. I trust that, in the light of this experience, this kind of incident will not occur again.

I think, too, that partly because this Measure has been so rushed all along, perhaps the Minister has not had time to catch up with himself. I hope that the doctrine I have indicated will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because I think the public interest is profoundly involved.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 235; Noes, 218.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[7.15 a.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Donner, P. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Doughty, C. J. A


Arbuthnot, John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T
Erroll, F. J.


Ashlon, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullard, D. G.
Fell, A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Finlay, Graeme


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Baldwin, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Banks, Col. C.
Carr, Robert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Barber, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Channon, H.
Foster, John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T, D. (Pollok)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Colegate, W. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Godber, J. B


Birch, Nigel
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gough, C. F. H


Bishop, F. P.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gower, H. R.


Black, C. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bossom, A. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimond, J.


Bowen, E. R.
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Weslbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Davidson, Viscountess
Harden, J. R. E.


Braine, B. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooke, Henry (Hammtead)
Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)




Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Scott, R. Donald


Heald, Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Heath, Edward
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Shepherd, William


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major S. F.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Spenoe, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Holland-Marlin, C. J
Maudling, R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Stevens, G. P.


Holt, A. F.
Mellor, Sir John
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hope, Lord John
Molson, A. H. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hornby-Smith, Mist M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Horobin, I. M.
Mott-Radelyffe, C. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Summers, G. S.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolon, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, P J. M. (Conway)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Thompson, Kenneth (Walten)


Hylton-Foster, H B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Odey, G. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Johnson, Eric (Blaekley)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tilney, John


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turner, H. F. L.


Kerr, H. W.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Turton, R. H.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Osborne, C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lambton, Viscount
Partridge, E.
Vaugnan-Morgan, J. K.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Vosper, D. F.


Langford-Hoult, J. A.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lindsay, Martin
Powell. J. Enoch
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Linstead, H. N.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Watkinson H A.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Wellwood, W.


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wills, G.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, S. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Hon. R.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Roper, Sir Harold



Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.
Mrs Studholme and


Haclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ryder, Cap. R. E. D.
Mr. T. G. D.Galbraith.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Albu, A. H.
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Glanville, James.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Baird, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bartley, P.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grey, C. F.


Bence, C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Beswiek, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Deer, G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, W. W.


Blyton, W.R.
Dodds, N. N.
Hargreaves, A.


Boardman, H.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E)


Bowles, F. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Below)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Houghton, Douglas


Burton, Mist F. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, J H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Callaghan, L. J.
Finch, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Carmishael, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Acorington)


Champion, A. J.
Foot, M. M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Chapman, W. D.
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)







Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Naal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sorensen, R. W.


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, M.
Sirachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jenkins, R. H. Stechford)
Oswald, T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Padley, W. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Porter, G.
Timmons, J.


Lewis, Arthur
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


MacColl, J. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, H. W.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


MeInnes, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McLeavy, F.
Rankin, John
West, D. G.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reeves, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Raid, William (Camlachie)
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wigg, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Willey, F. T.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mason, Roy
Shackleton, E. A. A
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mayhew, C. P.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mellish, R. J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Moody, A. S
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Morley, R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)



Moyle, A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, F. W.
Snow, J. W.
Mr. Bowden and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This matter has been discussed during the debate on the Opposition Amendment. In the interests of all hon. Members I do not think it necessary for me to develop the argument any further.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Minister has stated, in principle, what this Amendment is about. We shall vote against it precisely for the reasons which we have already given.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes. 234; Noes, 216.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[7.26 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crouch, R. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Deedes, W. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Donner, P. W.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullard, D. G.
Doughty, C. J. A


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Erroll, F. J.


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fell, A.


Barber, Anthony
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, A. B.
Campbell, Sir David
Fisher, Nigel


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Carr, Robert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Channon, H.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Foster, John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Sir Ian (Moreeambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Birch, Nigel
Colegate, W. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gailbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bowen, E. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gough, C. F. H.




Gower, H. R
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Grimond, J.
McAdden, S. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Russell, R. S.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Harden, J. R. E.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Scott, R. Donald


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Shepherd, William


Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Snadden, W. McN.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.
Soames, Capt. C.


Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John
Studholme, H. G.


Holland-Martin, C. J
Molson, A. H. E.
Summers, G. S.


Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Horobin, I. M
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony
Tilney, John


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Hylton-Foster, H B. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Vosper, D. F.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kerr, H. W.
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lambton, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch
Weilwood, W.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lindsay, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Linstead, H. N.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, G.


Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Low, A. R. W.
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J.
Fienburgh, W


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J.
Finch, H. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chapman, W. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Foot, M. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Baird, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bartley, P.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bence, C. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Benson, G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Glanville, James


Beswick, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blackburn, F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grey, C. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Deer, G.
Hale, Leslie


Bowden, H. W.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowles, F. G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
Hamilton, W. W


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hannan, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hargreaves, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Herbison, Miss M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Hewitson, Capt. M







Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Monslow, W
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Hay, J. H.
Morley, R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morriton, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A
Sorensen, R. W


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Orbach, M.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Oswald, T.
Swingler, S. T


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E
Sylvester, G. O.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpetn)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones. David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
Thernton, E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearl, T. F.
Timmons, J.


Keenan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Popplewell, E.
Usborne, H. C.


King, Dr. H. M.
Porter, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Lee, Frederiok (Newton)
Prioe, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Proctor, W. T
West, D. G.


Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Lindgren, G. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Rankln, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


McGhee, H. G
Reeves, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McInnes, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wigg, George


McLeavy, F
Rhodes, H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. G. A. B.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, F. T.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Royle, C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Wyatt, W. L.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Short, E. W.
Yates, V. F.


Mason, Roy
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Mayhew, C. P
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mikardo, Ian
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. Taylor.


Mitchison, G. R
Skeffington, A. M.



Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 44, leave out from "show" to first "and" in line 45, and insert:
the financial results of the activities of the company.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite because the purpose of the Amendment is to limit the amount of information that has to be given by the Commission in its annual report about the financial state and operating activities of the retained companies. I believe that the party opposite considered that when the Bill left this House it left rather too much in the way of responsibility in this matter on the Commission.
Clause 4 deals with retained companies and it says in subsection (3) that the annual statement of the Commission

shall include information as to the activities of these companies and shall be so phrased as to show, as far as may be, the financial and operating results of each such activity. It has been pointed out to us, and the Transport Commission have themselves represented, that these words would put a rather onerous burden on the firms, particularly if a strict interpretation should be given to the word "activity."
It is therefore proposed, by this Amendment, to limit the information required to the financial results of the activities of each company as a whole, and not provide for results as between one activity and another. I hope that this will commend itself to the Opposition, because I think it is in line with the view they took when the Bill left this House.

Further consideration of Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered this day.

FAMOUS PARLIAMENTARIANS (MEMORIALS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

7.38 a.m.

Dr. Horace King: I desire to apologise to the Minister and the servants of the House because the action of the Leader of the House has made this debate so late. In July, 1950, I urged that Keir Hardie, whose contribution to Parliamentary democracy is of historical significance, should be honoured by some memorial in Parliament. No one spoke against my Motion; it was supported from both sides, but it has yet to be carried out. I think it would be regrettable that a tribute to the first Socialist figure in this House should have to wait for its implementation by a Socialist majority. I believe Hardie belongs to history, and a tribute to him in this House is overdue.
This morning I wish to raise a similar topic. We are inclined to take British freedom too much for granted. The Prime Minister and the Queen go about the country without a bodyguard. The Leader of the Opposition exists outside a State prison, and is part of the machinery of State. An hon. Member casually announces in a debate on the Civil List that he is a Republican. A back bencher cheekily interrogates or denounces a Minister of State without penalty. Parliament's own prison is always empty. There are no Russian purge trials, no American witchhunts.
Even in Britain political democracy is not perfect. Civil servants have only limited political rights, and the recent White Paper on the political rights of civil servants is a travesty of democracy. Local government employees may not stand for election to the bodies which employ them. The full panoply of freedom is denied to policemen. In Middlesex teachers are still submitted to political inquisitions by a "McCarthy" county council. Some day I hope all such limitations will go, and every citizen will enjoy the same political rights as any other citizen.
We ought not to take our liberties lightly, and we should honour, whenever we can, those who endured suffering in this place to win us this great Parliamentary democracy. Yet, as we show visitors round the Palace, we are aware of great omissions of what ought to be the "Pantheon of Democracy," a "Palace of Freedom." In Westminster Hall, when we turn from its austere beauty to its historical mementoes, we are faced with plaques to Charles I, Strafford and Warren Hastings, whose contributions to democracy were, to speak kindly, negligible, and we turn with relief to show our visitors William Wallace, the only freedom-lover honoured there. The statues round St. Stephen's are almost a bowdlerised version of the fight for freedom. Worthy as were the men there celebrated, perhaps only Hampden and Selden are of democratic significance.
I am asking for memorials to three or four great Parliament men who suffered for freedom. But there were others whose names might be recorded today. Keighley, gaoled for presenting a Bill in 1301; Haxey, gaoled for wanting to cut down the Civil List of Richard II, and shamefully handed over by the frightened Commons; Thorpe, a Speaker, who was gaoled in 1453 and later executed; Yonge, gaoled in the same year; Strode, whose imprisonment gave us a Parliamentary law on freedom; Sir Thomas More, executed for saying, among other things, that no Parliament could make a law that God should not be God; Wilkes, a bad man who fought for good causes, and won the right of electors to elect whom they like, and of reporters to report what they like; and, of course, Simon de Montfort, the founder of Parliaments. These are true and great Parliament men, yet they have no memorial here, except their great work.
In 1376 the Commons met, as they used to then, across the way in the Chapter House. They sat around on benches, and Members would go to a lectern in the centre to speak. They began and ended their speeches with short Latin prayers—no doubt learnt by heart—possibly always the same one. They had been called to vote King Edward III his taxes, but they were determined not to be taxed until wrongs


were put right. The tunes were evil, like Shelley's—
An old mad blind despised and dying King Rulers who neither see nor feel nor know But leechlike to their fainting country cling.
They chose Sir Peter de la Mare as their spokesman. He summed up each day's debates, gathered together all the grievances and then led the Commons to the Lords House in the Palace of Westminster. When he had got inside with one or two members, the doors were locked and the rest of the Members were shut out and turned away. He was curtly told to say what he had to say, but he refused until the doors were opened, and the rest of the Commons were found and permitted to come in.
In a number of dramatic interviews with the King's Ministers—all pure history—de la Mare attacked them face to face, and charged them with illegality and corruption. He brought with him a book, or roll, of Parliament laws, and said, "That which was made by Parliament should never be unmade, except by Parliament." He demanded an account of how the ministers had spent the money raised by taxes. Finally the demanded that the King's mistress be dismissed and his worst Ministers be imprisoned.
All this sounds fairly straightforward today. In those days—with 500 years of struggle for democracy ahead—it called for courage almost beyond description, and behind a brave spokesman a resolute House of Commons. They won, but their victory of this Parliament was shortlived. Within a twelvemonth its work was undone and de la Mare was imprisoned. It required the death of Edward III and almost a revolution from the people of London to set him free, and he became Speaker again under Richard II. Although he was the first Speaker we know of, he was no doubt the culmination of a long line of Commons leaders who had the dangerous task of voicing to tyrannical rulers the first upsurgings of a people who were creating even then the rough pattern of the modem Parliament. The courage of such men remains symbolised for all time in the reluctance with which you, Mr. Speaker, assumed the Chair on the day of your election—an office, which, if I may venture to say with profound respect, you are occupying with such distinction.
Peter Wentworth's story is better known, and his worth will be even more appreciated when Professor Neale's great series of books on Elizabeth and her Parliaments is completed. In the reign of the first Elizabeth, Parliament, which had been emasculated by the earlier Tudors, was beginning to reassert itself. Elizabeth was clever enough—by blending cajolery and tyranny and supreme statesmanship—to control the Commons and so defer the real struggle until the heavier-footed Stuarts made civil war inevitable. Wentworth was the most illustrious back bencher of history. Other brave Elizabethan M.P.s spoke fearlessly about policy—about her marriage, about religion, about monopolies, and were sent to prison for short periods. There is a galaxy of great little men—Cope, Pistor, Strickland and others.
Wentworth struck deeper. He was interested in government itself, in Parliament as a democratic instrument. His first great speech in Parliament raised the right of the Commons to speak freely and to discuss all State business, and the need for the Queen to govern with the advice of Parliament and according to the law. I wish I had time to quote from this—one of the noblest ever made in this House. For it—and especially for daring to say that even Elizabeth had faults—he was examined by a Committee of Privy Councillors, whom he lectured on the rights of elected backbenchers and was sent to the Tower. He was released after some weeks. Elizabeth found that a taste of the Tower was enough for most rebels.
But some years later, when Parliament re-assembled, Wentworth immediately resumed his battle for a free Parliament and free debates. He was probably the first to raise a point of order—not an unmixed blessing. He raised about 10—questions on the conduct of debates of the House. They were fundamental, and included an attack on the Speaker, who at that time used to manipulate debates and motions according to instructions from the Queen and her Government. But he was never allowed to put his questions in the House, for he was again sent to the Tower. There he stayed for the Session.
Even this did not finish him. In the next Parliament Wentworth, who had by now organised the rudiments of a party


in Opposition, and who held, or tried to hold, meetings of a shadow cabinet outside of Parliament, tried to promote a petition urging the Government to name Elizabeth's successor. He and his friends were arrested and examined, and Went-worth was again imprisoned in the Tower. There he stayed until he died a few years later. Had he at any time recanted he might have been a free man again. Went-worth was at least half a century ahead of his time, and I know of no M.P. who showed more courage, physical or moral.
I have not the time to tell the whole story of Sir John Eliot, who was leader of the Opposition in Charles I's early Parliaments. He was a Cornishman and Cornwall should be proud of him. Wentworth was a Cornish M.P., but I am proud to think he was a Yorkshire-man. Eliot's great work was a steady and persistent fight to regain the powers which Parliament had won and had then lost for a century—the right to have grievances put right before taxes were levied, and the right to censure and dismiss ministers. He was gaoled for his speeches in the House and in Westminster Hall. But Parliament, getting stronger, went on strike until he was freed. He was then imprisoned on trumped-up charges, but again released and, despite the efforts of powerful enemies, he was re-elected, and proved not only a great statesman, but also the noblest of Parliamentary leaders. He was the architect of the Petition of Right.
When Charles decided to get rid of Parliament—and he thought, for ever—he sent Eliot to the Tower. There he remained until he died, but, like Wentworth, he could have been freed if he had recanted. He chose to die, perhaps in the same dungeon as Wentworth. Before he died, Eliot had a portrait painted of his emaciated self, dying as he was of gaol consumption, and requested that it be hung in his house by the side of a portrait made when he was a free man, so that the world might know what a tyrant could do to the body of a democrat. But tyranny did nothing to his soul, and less than nothing to his work. I have not the time to speak of a fourth hero—John Pym, the greatest statesman of his century, who was buried in Westminster Abbey but cast out of it in the counter-revolution.
These were mighty men. Their sufferings were part of the price paid for a free Parliament. Yet none of them is honoured here by any memorial. I am too young a Parliamentarian to make more than tentative suggestions, but I hope that the committee at work on the history of Parliament will let the country know, some day, of all the men who gave us freedom.
Somewhere in this Palace there ought to be a Hall of Freedom; a place to which visitors might go to see memorials and other tokens of the greatest story in British history—the story of the growth of Parliament; a Parliament Room. We should have here at least copies of Magna Carta, the Petition of Right—another place has it, but only Members' friends may see it—the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Bill of Rights. The great but inadequate series of historical paintings ought to be completed, or some of them replaced. We should commission artists to give us something of Simon de Montfort, of de la Mare leading the Commons in the Chapter House; of Wentworth in the Star Chamber, of Eliot in the Tower. There may be portraits of some of these worthies surviving somewhere in Britain. If so, we should make an effort to get them for the place they helped to create. If not, there should be memorials of some other kind.
To me, it is strange that we should find wall space for a host of insignificants of the corrupt 18th century when Parliament was hardly a Parliament at all, but a gang of mercenaries deserving all that Swift said about them in "Gulliver's Travels." For example, although we have a portrait of Mr. Speaker Trevor, who was expelled for bribery and corruption, we still exclude John Pym, a statesman with most of Cromwell's virtues and none of his faults. Outside, we have a statue to Cromwell, but he was not completely a good Parliamentarian. I could mention a dozen 19th century statues which could be sacrificed to make room for Keir Hardie.
I should be happy to think that the Minister of Works, whom I know to be enthusiastic and capable in his official duties, left behind him an improvement in the Palace by making it more representative of the drama and heroism of the history of the growth of a free Parliament


than it is today. By all means let us have the pageantry, glamour and dignified spectacle that surrounds the Throne and another place, but let us also realise that there is a splendour outshining all pageantry in the story of how simple, courageous folk—burgesses and knights of the shire—built on this island a pattern of free living that is precious, as Went-worth said, "beyond all inestimable treasure."
We are living in a world epoch when all our basic freedoms, so hardly won, are in jeopardy. The images and stories of those who sacrificed to win those freedoms for us can inspire those inside and outside this House to guard them, and warn foolish reactionaries against the danger of tampering with them. For Wentworth also said that though the name of liberty is sweet, the thing itself is infinitely more precious.

7.56 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for the Test Division of Southampton (Dr. King) has raised this morning a matter of considerable interest to all of us who care for the history and traditions of this House. He made four suggestions: to set up a committee to consider what additional Parliamentary figures should be commemorated in this Palace; second, to set aside some room for commemoration purposes; third, to place on public exhibition copies of historic documents; and fourth, to commission the painting of additional pictures of historical events.
Let me say at the outset how my right hon. Friend understands his responsibility in this matter. The adornment of this Palace with statues and pictures of historic events is entirely a matter for the House itself. It is no doubt the duty of the Minister of Works to be aware when a general wish exists for a memorial, and ultimately it is his responsibility to give effect to the wishes of the House. It is not, however, for him in any way to take a decision in the matter. This is a matter not for the Government as such, but for the House itself.
This principle is proved by the established procedures described in Erskine May in the case of recently deceased statesmen. If the Minister is convinced

that there is a general demand in the House for a memorial, the Minister invites the Whips of the different parties to discuss the matter with him under the chairmanship of yourself, Mr. Speaker. If all are agreed that the project should be pursued, the Minister consults the Fine Art Commission about the form of the memorial and he also consults the Lord Great Chamberlain if any alteration in the structure of the Palace is involved. When all these details have been agreed, the Resolution is then moved in Committee of the whole House, in a manner with which hon. Members are familiar, because not long ago this was done in the case of the late Lord Asquith.
I gather that the hon. Member wishes a Select Committee of the House to be set up to consider the omissions which at present exist amongst those who are commemorated in this Palace. I am not aware that there is any general feeling in the House at present that anything of this kind is needed. For my part, I cannot help feeling there would be something rather artificial in attempting at this moment to erect a monument to Mr. Speaker de la Mare more than 500 years after his death. We have no record of his appearance and I do not think that most Members of the House have any great knowledge of his career, distinguished and courageous as that undoubtedly was. Much the same, I am inclined to think, applies in the case of Peter Wentworth.
I am not myself attracted by the idea of a memorial hall. I doubt very much whether Members would ordinarily use it. Indeed, if the purpose is to remind Members of these distinguished figures of departed statesmen, I should have thought it would seem desirable that a memorial should be erected, as has until now been the custom, in such places as St. Stephen's Chapel and the Members' Lobby, as was done recently in the case of the statue of Lord Asquith. I am bound also to add that the Minister of Works finds that there is not a single available room in the Palace. Indeed, we could do with a large addition to our accommodation in order to deal with the actual burden of 20th Century legislation.
As regards the painting of significant events in Parliamentary history, I think our present collection covers most of those which are of the greatest interest.


I, personally, always make a point of showing the picture of the attempted arrest of the Five Members of Parliament when I am taking visitors around the House. Nor do I think that just copies of Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and of Habeas Corpus would be of great interest or great value. We have already interesting exhibits, which again, I try to show to all visitors, the original Journals of the House, the page which was torn out by James I with his own hand, and the record of the Dissolution of the Rump by Oliver Cromwell.
The hon. Member will be glad to know that the Government have presented the Exhibition of Parliament, which was shown a year ago in the Grand Committee Room, to the Hansard Society. They exhibited it in Blackpool in August and September last year, and it will be on exhibition this year in the Imperial

Institute, South Kensington. The hon. Member, by raising this matter on the Adjournment, has taken an opportunity of bringing his ideas to the attention of the House as a whole, although, unfortunately, the House is not so full at this time of the morning. I am sure that many hon. Members will read his speech with the same enjoyment as that with which we listened to it. Although I am not convinced at present that there are many other hon. Members who support the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend would give sympathetic consideration to any general demand by the House for him to take steps on the lines indicated toy the hon. Member.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Eight o'clock, a.m., Wednesday, 22nd April.